The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

‘Sharing the space’ in the agricultural knowledge

and innovation system: multi-actor innovation
partnerships with farmers and foresters in Europe

Andrew F. Fieldsend , Evelien Cronin , Eszter Varga , Szabolcs Biró & Elke
Rogge

To cite this article: Andrew F. Fieldsend , Evelien Cronin , Eszter Varga , Szabolcs Biró & Elke
Rogge (2021): ‘Sharing the space’ in the agricultural knowledge and innovation system: multi-actor
innovation partnerships with farmers and foresters in Europe, The Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, DOI: 10.1080/1389224X.2021.1873156

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1873156

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 18 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raee20
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1873156

‘Sharing the space’ in the agricultural knowledge and

innovation system: multi-actor innovation partnerships with
farmers and foresters in Europe
a
Andrew F. Fieldsend , Evelien Croninb, Eszter Varga a
, Szabolcs Biró a
and
Elke Roggeb
a
NAIK-Agrárgaztasági Kutatóintézet, Budapest, Hungary; bVlaams Instituut voor Landbouw-,
Visserij- en Voedingsonderzoek, Merelbeke, Belgium

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: Networks and partnerships are commonly-used tools to Received 20 April 2020
foster knowledge sharing between actors and organisations in Accepted 15 December 2020
the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS), but in
Europe the policy emphasis on including users, such as farmers KEYWORDS: Agriculture;
forestry; co-innovation; EIP-
and foresters, is relatively recent. This paper assesses user AGRI; policy interventions;
involvement in a diverse set of European Union (EU)-funded and LIAISON project
non-EU (formal and informal) multi-actor partnerships.
Design/methodology/approach: A review of 200 projects and
other partnerships including farmers and foresters, drawn from an
integrated database of several thousand such examples, assessed
the types of innovation challenges tackled, solutions proposed,
innovation supported, parameters of actor participation and the
expectations of success in each example.
Findings: All the reviewed policy instruments, not just those
funded in the frame of the EIP-AGRI, can be used to involve users
in co-innovation in agriculture, forestry and related value chains.
Practical implications: The EIP-AGRI is just one part of a complex
matrix of multi-actor co-innovation activities involving farmers and
foresters in Europe. Interlinking of innovation programmes and
more effective targeting of these programmes at groups of
actors, especially users, who are currently not sufficiently
engaged are worthy aspirations.
Theoretical implications: Any analysis of co-innovation involving
users must recognise the existence of a multiplicity (projects, non-
project activities, formal and informal) of multi-actor approaches.
Originality/value: This research used a common methodology to
review several forms of multi-actor partnerships involving users
and other actors. Our data suggest that many of these are effective
methods of supporting co-innovation and are, therefore, ‘sharing
the space’ within the AKIS.

CONTACT Andrew F. Fieldsend andrew.fi[email protected] NAIK-Agrárgaztasági Kutatóintézet, Zsil utca 3-5,

1093 Budapest, Hungary
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
2 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

Introduction
The Horizon 2020 (H2020) funded multi-actor project LIAISON (Better Rural Inno-
vation: Linking Actors, Instruments and Policies through Networks) is expected to
make a significant and meaningful contribution to optimising interactive innovation
project approaches and the delivery of European Union (EU) policies to speed up inno-
vation in agriculture, forestry and related sectors. Using a common methodology, we
reviewed the design and implementation of 200 multi-actor partnerships involving
farmers and foresters from across Europe. These included activities supported by recog-
nised innovation policy instruments and others that were not. We assessed the types of
innovation challenges tackled, solutions proposed, innovation supported, parameters of
actor participation and the expectations of success. From our findings, we developed rec-
ommendations for improving the targeting and interlinking of policy instruments, and
on the need for academics and policy-makers to pay more attention to the important
role of value chain co-innovation in the AKIS.
Innovation appears now, not primarily as a single event, but rather as a process (Lund-
vall 2016). Well-documented developments in innovation systems thinking (Rivera et al.
2006; Klerkx, van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012) have led to the recognition that, alongside
the traditional process of ‘knowledge transfer’ (with research as the source of knowledge,
extension and education as knowledge and information channels, and farmers as passive
recipients of knowledge), innovation can be ‘co-produced’ through interactions between
farmers, researchers, intermediate actors (input providers, experts, distributors, etc.) and
consumers. In this process of ‘co-innovation’, actors jointly identify problems and co-
create solutions through a collective learning process involving knowledge sharing
(Nederlof, Wongtschowski, and Van Der Lee 2011; Dogliotti et al. 2014). The potential
contribution of co-innovation to agricultural development is now accepted in global
(FAO 2014) and EU policy discourses.
Innovation does not occur in isolation and the innovators are not the sole agents of
change. Several additional factors play a key role, such as policy, legislation, infrastruc-
ture, funding and market developments (Klerkx, van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012). In
the EU, policy instruments to support farmer and forester participation in multi-actor
innovation partnerships have their foundations in the development, via several Frame-
work Programme research projects, of the ‘Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation
System’ (AKIS) model (Knickel et al. 2009; Dockès, Tisenkopfs, and Bock 2011;
Knierim, Boenning, et al. 2015). Defined as ‘a concept that seeks to encompass and
influence the complexity of knowledge and innovation processes in the rural sphere’
(Dockès, Tisenkopfs, and Bock 2011, 7), the AKIS embraces the actors, their organis-
ation(s) and the knowledge flows between them. The concept was operationalised into
policy mainly by the Standing Committee of Agricultural Research (SCAR) Strategic
Working Group (SWG) on AKIS (EU SCAR 2012 and subsequent publications) in con-
sultation with the European Commission’s (EC) Directorate-General for Agriculture and
Rural Development (DG AGRI).
Consequently, the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and
Sustainability (EIP-AGRI) was introduced as a tool to speed up innovation in agriculture,
forestry and rural development and to create synergies between different policy pro-
grammes both at the EU and Member State level (DG AGRI 2018). Central to the
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 3

EIP-AGRI approach is the ‘interactive innovation model’, defined as: ‘the collaboration
between various actors to make best use of complementary types of knowledge (scientific,
practical, organisational etc.) in view of co-creation and diffusion of solutions/opportu-
nities ready to implement in practice’ (EIP-AGRI SP 2017, 3). EIP-AGRI projects,
whether those funded by Horizon 2020 or ‘Operational Groups’ (OG), which are
funded from Rural Development Programmes (RDP) and which focus on real problems
or opportunities that farmers, foresters or others are facing, are required to apply the
‘multi-actor approach’ from beginning to end (EIP-AGRI SP 2017).
While the EIP-AGRI is unique among EU policy instruments in stressing the need to
include farmers and foresters (i.e. ‘practitioners’ or ‘users’1) in co-innovation partner-
ships, it has two conceptual shortcomings. Firstly, activities are implemented solely in
the form of ‘projects’, i.e. single, non-divisible interventions with fixed time schedules
and dedicated budgets, as defined by O’Neill et al. (2012). In practice, however, co-inno-
vation can be delivered according to several different models which engage actors in
dynamic multi-stakeholder innovation systems or in iterative learning for change pro-
cesses (Ingram et al. 2020). These other ‘actor configurations’ include networks, plat-
forms, clusters, alliances and partnerships (Knierim, Koutsouris, et al. 2015). Unlike
projects, they might not be fixed term or be implemented by a ‘consortium’ (a defined
group of partners working on a formal basis). We use the term ‘partnership’ when refer-
ring collectively to projects and non-project activities.
Secondly, there is an implicit emphasis in the EIP-AGRI on translating research
knowledge into practical applications. This equates in the EU SCAR (2012) visual depic-
tion of the AKIS (see 9) to knowledge sharing between farmers and the (mainly public
sector) education and research institutes, and advisory services, a reflection of the persist-
ent ‘linear’ approach to innovation described above. Yet knowledge sharing between the
(mainly private sector) actors in the value chain, including input suppliers and food pro-
cessors, is where much of the on-farm technology or food retail innovation takes place
(Swinnen and Kuijpers 2019). Knowledge sharing between farmers (Kilpatrick and
Johns 2007; Oreszczyn, Lane, and Carr 2010) and foresters (Hamunen et al. 2015) them-
selves can also foster co-innovation. Indeed, Koutsouris et al. (2017) observed that
farmers tend to be most influenced by proof of successful farming methods by their
peers, so-called peer-to-peer learning.
Furthermore, despite the overall success of the EIP-AGRI in fostering farmer-led co-
innovation (Fotheringham et al. 2016), its potential impact may be limited in at least two
respects. The first concerns its ability to engage with harder-to-reach groups of users, i.e.
those sections of the community that are difficult to involve in public participation
(Brackertz 2007). Barriers to user co-design of and participation in farming programmes
include lack of time (farmers are ‘too busy’), policy and bureaucracy, the digital divide,
geographical factors (at a local/regional level such as remote areas with poor communi-
cations), lack of social capital, lack of trust, low income, age, farm type and learning dis-
abilities (Hurley et al. 2020).
Openness to innovation is frequently analysed according to the ‘diffusion of inno-
vation’ theory (Rogers 1962) with adopters variously categorised from ‘innovators’
through to ‘laggards’. The validity of this theory has long been robustly challenged
(Albrecht 1963; Hoffman 2005). Of particular concern is the implicit suggestion that
‘laggards’ are somehow ‘at fault’ and can potentially be motivated to innovate or adopt
4 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

an innovation. In fact, farmers may be aware of an innovation but conclude that it is not
in their best interests to adopt it (Hoffman 2005).
There is indeed increasing empirical evidence that many farmers decide to innovate
not only on the basis of economic and personal considerations, but also in the context
of the social interactions they maintain among themselves and with the broad range of
agents who promote change, such as buyers, input providers, local authorities,
farmers’ groups and others (Knierim, Koutsouris, et al. 2015; Fieldsend et al. 2019).
Embeddedness in social networks is a crucial factor in an equation that explains
farmers’ decisions to innovate (Chávez and Hartwich 2011). In other words, this
embeddedness fosters openness to innovation by mitigating the barriers listed above.
Certain groups of users, such as small and family farms (including semi-subsistence
farms, those in remote areas and those managed by women), tend to be less well
embedded into social networks (FAO 2014) and are potentially harder to reach.
When funding and other resources are limited, there is a tendency for programmes to
‘pick the low-hanging fruit’ and it is the farmers who are already well connected to EU
networks that are likely to benefit most from the EIP-AGRI, quite possibly on multiple
occasions, while the mass of users will not be engaged at all. Fotheringham et al. (2016)
observed that only several thousand farms, i.e. just a small proportion of the 20 million
farming businesses across the EU, will be directly involved in the EIP-AGRI through par-
ticipation in OGs or related initiatives.
The second concern is the suitability of the EIP-AGRI for implementation in all
regions of the EU. In the current (2014–2020) programming period, by far the largest
numbers of OGs are planned for the Western EU Member States. Of the 3205 OGs
planned in April 2016, Spain accounted for 849, Italy for 625, Greece for 435, France
for 305 and Germany for 203 (EIP-AGRI SP 2016). Between them, 9 of the 11 post-social-
ist Member States were planning just 298 OGs, with Poland envisaging 90 and Hungary
70, while Estonia and Latvia were not expecting to fund any such groups.
The OG model is, therefore, being adopted only with extreme caution in the transition
economies of Eastern Europe and this geographical imbalance may persist. Over 10 years
ago, Gorton, Hubbard, and Hubbard (2009) questioned the wisdom of transferring EU
agricultural and rural policy developed in countries with a long tradition of family
farming to post-socialist EU Member States with rural areas that are substantially
different in terms of their underlying historical and socio-economic conditions. The
process assumed that former collectivised structures would naturally adjust to the
Western European norm (Swain 2013). In fact, these structural differences can lead to
different interests and priorities regarding research and innovation funding (Pokrivčák,
Ciaian, and Drabik 2019). Augustyn and Nemes (2014) agreed that ‘Europeanisation’ in
rural development has been mostly a one-way process of transferring the EU-15 policy
models into the post-socialist realm, with incomplete success, while Nemes, High, and
Augustyn (2014) reported that LEADER as a rural development model has been
difficult to operate in the post-socialist countries. Similar challenges may continue to
be encountered with the implementation of the EIP-AGRI.
Despite its merits, therefore, the EIP-AGRI approach has several potential limitations.
But, beyond the EIP-AGRI, other forms of multi-actor innovation partnerships, includ-
ing farmers and foresters, occur widely across Europe. Indeed, the AKIS is a ‘space’ in
which numerous knowledge sharing and co-innovation activities are occurring
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 5

through a matrix of networks and partnerships. In this paper, we describe how the EIP-
AGRI and a range of other EU-supported and non-EU (formal and informal) co-inno-
vation activities are ‘sharing the space’ in the AKIS. Following the presentation of our
research results, we discuss the emerging research, practical and policy implications.

Methodology
Reflecting the focus of our research on multi-actor partnerships involving users, we
selected 200 projects and non-project activities for review that complied with 5 criteria.
These included (a) involving a multi-actor partnership composed of two or more entities;
(b) having a clear intention to innovate in (c) a relevant topic; and (d) featuring a substan-
tial level of engagement with practitioners. In other words, it was necessary for farmers,
foresters and/or their organisations to be involved in the co-innovation process, usually
as participants in the core partnership, although ‘substantial engagement’ could
occasionally be achieved in other ways in some other ‘actor configurations’ (such as net-
works). Finally, the quality of the published description had to allow an assessment of
whether the activity was likely to be ‘insightful’ in terms of yielding useful information.
The reviewed examples were shortlisted from two main sources (Figure 1) during the
first quarter of 2019. Firstly, using keyword searches, 1357 candidate projects were ident-
ified from a compiled database of several thousand such examples drawn from EU data-
bases (Table 1). The main source (yielding 523 candidates) was the EIP-AGRI project
database. Every consulted database was uniquely structured and, of necessity, different
keywords were used to shortlist projects from each (Fieldsend, Cronin, and Rønningen
2019). National project databases were compiled locally by each LIAISON partner under
close supervision.
Recognising that these databases would not adequately sample the range of multi-actor
partnership approaches that exist, a second source was an EU-wide Rural Innovation
Contest (EURIC) held by the LIAISON project aimed at identifying less formal examples
of co-innovation. The call for entries was widely publicised by the consortium partners
through many channels, including the farming, rural, policy and local media, within EU
Member States and several neighbouring countries, and attracted 175 eligible entries from
20 countries. They were termed ‘under-the-radar’ activities as many of them were not
included in published databases and/or not known to EU and/or national policy-makers.
To ensure a diversity of multi-actor co-innovation activities for review, a purposive
stratified sampling frame was applied. The EIP-AGRI was represented by 87 projects
(Figure 2), including 34 H2020 Research and Innovation Actions (RIA), 16 Thematic
Networks (TN) and 37 OGs from 14 EU Member States. The other 74 projects included
EU Interreg and LIFE projects, projects funded by RDPs in 10 EU Member States, pro-
jects nationally funded in 9 countries (including Norway and Switzerland), and some
funded by other sources including the private sector. Of the 39 non-project activities,
25 were externally funded and 14 were not. Around three-quarters of the sample were
agriculture related, 5 per cent concerned forestry and just over 20 per cent dealt with
food chain topics.
The reviews were conducted by the LIAISON consortium partners in the period May–
July 2019 and consisted of three phases. Firstly, desk research from published infor-
mation was undertaken by the project partners and the results subsequently checked
6 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

Figure 1. Selection pathway of the 200 co-innovation projects and non-project activities.

with the interviewees. Secondly, a ‘one telephone call’ semi-structured interview was held
with a key informant, involving questions related to the partnership, cooperation within
it, its performance and outcomes, and a short self-evaluation. Of the interviewees, 128
described themselves as being ‘coordinator’, ‘project leader’ or in a comparable role, a
further 21 occupied evidently senior positions such as ‘managing director’ and the
remaining 51 were ‘project partners’ or similar. Among them, 84 were female, 115
were male and 3 were not defined. Thirdly, a post-interview reflection by the
LIAISON partner was intended to obtain some first insights into the factors they
thought were keys to the success of the project or causes of failure or were barriers to
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 7

Table 1. European Union databases from which the projects for review were sourced.
No. of projects
Database name Database URL Total Shortlisted
EIP-AGRI https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/find-connect/projects?title= 641 523
&field_proj_funding_source_list=0&search_api_views_fulltext=
&=Search
H2020 Thematic https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/about/thematic-networks-%E2% 29 29
Networks 80%93-closing-research-and
H2020 ‘multi-actor’ https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/about/multi-actor-projects- 77 77
projects scientists-and-farmers
Knotter et al. (2019) https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_ 611 260a
operational_groups_assessment_2018_data_projects_involved.xlsx
ENRD ‘Projects and https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/projects-practice_en 348 69
practice’
Interreg Europe https://www.interregeurope.eu/discover-projects/ 1504 52
KEEP (Interreg https://www.keep.eu/search 2187 136
projects)
LIFE programme http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm 4932 211
a
Additional OGs not included in the EIP-AGRI database.

Figure 2. Percentage of each type of project and non-project activity by ‘domain’.

Note: in all figures and tables, the numbers of each partnership type are shown in parentheses.

efficient implementation. This methodology ensured that a considerable amount of data

was gathered very efficiently from 200 co-innovation partnerships. A standard data gath-
ering template was used for all reviews, and the results were collated into a single data-
base for analysis.
Methods described in two papers aided the interpretation of our data. Firstly, Knotter
et al. (2019) reviewed the setting-up and implementation of the 611 OGs that were
approved and running under the EIP-AGRI until April 2018, together with their
results and how these were disseminated. Their analysis included a clustering exercise
that firstly required the development of sets of categories that were sufficiently represen-
tative for each OG to be associated with them. These categories covered the types of chal-
lenges tackled by the project (e.g. resource management, food safety and climate change),
8 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

the types of solutions proposed (e.g. new technologies and value chain innovations) and
the types of participating actors. The evident success of this approach when applied to
multi-actor projects (OGs) prompted us to adopt it for our own analysis.
Secondly, Lamprinopolou et al. (2014) defined four broad groups of actors in the AKIS
and these can be equated to the categorisation of Knotter et al. (2019) as follows: research:
researcher; direct demand/enterprise: business, individual farmer or forester, processing
or marketing SME and representative/supporting organisation; indirect demand: public
body and NGO; intermediary: advisor, education, and processing or marketing producer
organisation. We found this framework helpful for clarifying the extent of participation
of different groups of actors in our reviewed partnerships.
Since the research was to be conducted by 17 LIAISON partners from 15 countries, the
methodology was designed to maximise consistency and replicability of the results.
Nonetheless, two limitations should be noted. Firstly, despite the good results from
the EURIC, numerous multi-actor partnerships that are not included in databases will
have escaped our notice. Secondly, the cultural and organisational backgrounds of the
survey participants could potentially influence the way certain concepts have been trans-
lated and interpreted. For this reason, the potential success of the co-innovation process,
the issue that was arguably the most sensitive to cultural interpretation, was assessed both
by the interviewees (according to four criteria) and the interviewers.

Findings
Multi-actor partnerships: challenges, solutions and types of innovation covered
The reviewed partnerships are diverse in terms of challenges addressed, solutions pro-
posed and types of innovation supported. This finding applies both to the 87 EIP-
AGRI projects and 113 non-EIP-AGRI projects and non-project activities.
The profiles of challenges tackled by each type of partnership are presented in Table 2.
The H2020 projects are relatively evenly distributed across the challenges. The reviewed
OGs also have a broad focus, although almost 50 per cent of them cover resource man-
agement (R) and almost 50 per cent deal with socio-economic sustainability (S) (several
OGs may cover both topics, of course).

Table 2. Percentage of each type of project and non-project activity tackling a specific challenge.
Funding source and type A B C D F O P R S
Horizon 2020 RIA and IA (34) 17.6 23.5 32.4 20.6 41.2 17.6 11.8 38.2 26.5
H2020 Them. Networks (16) 37.5 37.5 6.3 6.3 37.5 50.0 6.3 31.3 31.3
Interreg A, B and C projects (20) 5.0 15.0 25.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 30.0 60.0
LIFE+ and LIFE projects (8) 37.5 50.0 62.5 12.5 25.0 12.5 25.0 12.5 12.5
Operational Groups (37) 29.7 27.0 16.2 8.1 35.1 13.5 8.1 45.9 48.6
Other ESIF, ERASMUS (20) 5.0 0.0 25.0 15.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 30.0 50.0
National/regional public (11) 27.3 9.1 18.2 0.0 18.2 27.3 27.3 36.4 54.5
Projects: other sources (15) 13.3 20.0 6.7 13.3 40.0 26.7 6.7 40.0 46.7
Non-projects with funding (25) 12.0 28.0 20.0 8.0 28.0 12.0 4.0 44.0 60.0
Non-projects not funded (14) 28.6 21.4 7.1 0.0 57.1 28.6 7.1 21.4 21.4
All projects/non-projects (200) 19.5 23.0 21.0 10.0 36.5 25.5 8.0 36.5 44.0
Notes: Totals for each type of projects exceed 100 per cent because up to three challenges per project could be specified.
Key: A: animal health/welfare; B: biodiversity/nature/landscape management; C: climate change; D: plant disease and pest
treatment; F: food safety/product quality; O: other; P: pollution; R: resource management; S: socio-economic
sustainability.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 9

Many of the reviewed Interreg projects (and also other ESIF-funded and ERASMUS+
projects) address socio-economic sustainability and, to a lesser extent, food safety/
product quality (F), while topics of more relevance to practical farming such as animal
health/welfare (A), plant disease and pest treatment (D) and pollution (P) are only
weakly represented. The relatively small number of LIFE and LIFE+ projects in the
sample are focused towards environmental/climate topics (B and C).
Socio-economic sustainability (S) is also the challenge most frequently addressed by
the reviewed national/regional level projects, and by non-project activities with
funding, and around 40 per cent of these projects tackle resource management issues
(R). By contrast, the high incidence (57.1 per cent) of food safety/product quality
among the non-project activities without funding hints that the participants may be
expecting product development to yield an early return on investment.
Production changes – new production practice/methods (PP) is the dominant type of
solution proposed by the reviewed partnerships, accounting for 37.7 per cent of the total
sample and exceeding 30 per cent among almost all types of projects and non-project
activities except for Interreg and other ESIF-funded and ERASMUS+ projects
(Figure 3). This type of solution is especially favoured by OGs (56.8 per cent), LIFE+
and LIFE projects (50.0 per cent) and H2020 RIAs (47.1 per cent). New technology sol-
utions (ND and NP) and value chain innovations (VB, VC, VL, VP and VS) are the focus
of around 19 and 22 per cent, respectively, of all reviewed projects and non-project
activities.
As regards the type of innovation supported, more than 50 per cent of reviewed H2020
RIAs and OGs address process innovation (P) and this type is also dominant among
H2020 TNs and projects funded from other sources (Figure 4). Around 20 per cent of

Figure 3. Percentage of each type of project and non-project activity proposing a specific type of sol-
ution. Key: N: new technology solutions – digital-based solutions (D), physical infrastructure (P); O:
other; P: production changes – new business models/diversification (B), new production practice/
methods (P); V: value chain innovations – branding, marketing, promoting and communication (B),
certification, standardisation, quality assurance framework (C), logistics and distributions (L), new
product development/introduction (P), value/supply chain optimisation (S).
10 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

Figure 4. Percentage of each type of project and non-project activity supporting a specific type of
innovation. Key: M: marketing; N: organisational; O: other; P: process; S: social; T: product.

reviewed EIP-AGRI projects support product innovation (T). By contrast, the reviewed
EIP-AGRI projects rarely address marketing (M) or social (S) innovation, while among
them organisational innovation (N) is only weakly represented.
Organisational and social innovation feature among the reviewed Interreg projects
and social innovation dominates among the LIFE+ and LIFE projects. Product inno-
vation is supported by over 35 per cent of non-project activities, with process and
social innovation also featuring strongly among these. Product innovation is especially
common among the non-project activities without funding, which again may reflect
expectations of an early financial return on investment.
Our 200 reviewed examples address many different challenges, propose a variety of
solutions and support several different types of innovation, but this observation also
applies to EIP-AGRI projects and non-EIP-AGRI partnerships separately. Thus, while
clear differences in focus between programmes do occur, our data suggest that, in
many situations, alternative options to the EIP-AGRI are available to prospective co-
innovation partnerships.

Actor participation in multi-actor partnerships

Farmers, foresters and their representative organisations can be involved in all types of
reviewed multi-actor partnerships, but there is notable variation in the nature of their
participation.
The number of partners was normally counted in terms of the number of organis-
ations (not individuals). For international EU-funded projects, this figure was easily
defined, but in some other instances, it was difficult to distinguish the core partnership
from the wider periphery of stakeholders (Figure 5). H2020 RIAs had on average the
largest consortia with almost 80 per cent of the reviewed projects having 21 partners
or more. This reflects their wide geographical coverage and big budgets. Few H2020
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 11

Figure 5. Number of partners in the partnership by percentage of type of project and non-project
activity. Key: NQ: the number of partners could not be quantified.

TN consortia exceeded 20 partners, while more than half of all other projects and non-
project activities had 10 partners or fewer.
Researchers (R) are very strongly represented in all types of projects funded in the frame
of EIP-AGRI while individual farmers or foresters are participants in over 80 per cent of
OGs (Table 3). Either they or their representatives are involved in all but one OG, are very
strongly represented in H2020 TNs and only slightly less so in H2020 RIAs.2 Extensive user
participation is also evident in other types of projects and in the reviewed non-project
activities with external funding. Lower rates of involvement are recorded for Interreg
and LIFE+/LIFE projects. While the benefits of including farmers, foresters and/or their
representative organisations in projects funded by these programmes depend on the
topic to be addressed, our results show that they can be involved.
Advisors (A) participate in around two-thirds of OGs and are included in more than
50 per cent of H2020 project consortia. Business (B) (e.g. IT providers) is also quite
strongly represented in the reviewed projects, notably H2020 RIAs, LIFE+ and LIFE pro-
jects, and non-project activities. Public bodies (G) take part in 75 per cent of reviewed
Interreg projects and are represented in around two-thirds of projects funded from
national and/or regional public sources. The overall picture is one of the substantial
levels of participation by diverse actors in the reviewed partnerships.
The same system of categorisation of actors was applied to the coordinators of inno-
vation partnerships. Unsurprisingly, almost all reviewed H2020 RIAs are coordinated by
researchers (R) or educational institutions (E) (Figure 6). These two groups are however
somewhat less dominant as regards coordinating H2020 TNs. Approximately 25 per cent
of the reviewed OGs are coordinated by researchers, with advisors (A), NGOs (N), pro-
cessing or marketing producer organisations (O) and representative/supporting organis-
ations (S) coordinating 10 per cent or more of this type of project.
Public bodies (G) coordinate 40 per cent of reviewed Interreg projects and researchers
also feature strongly as coordinators of national and/or regional publicly funded projects.
12 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

Table 3. Percentage of each type of project and non-project activity including a specific type of actor
in the consortium (or equivalent).
Funding source and type A B E F G M N O R S F/S
Horizon 2020 RIA and IA (34) 58.8 67.6 67.6 32.4 50.0 29.4 38.2 38.2 100 64.7 79.4
H2020 Them. Networks (16) 56.3 56.3 62.5 25.0 37.5 31.3 50.0 37.5 87.5 68.8 87.5
Interreg A, B and C projects (20) 50.0 40.0 45.0 30.0 75.0 20.0 45.0 30.0 75.0 60.0 70.0
LIFE+ and LIFE projects (8) 37.5 62.5 62.5 37.5 25.0 0.0 50.0 12.5 87.5 50.0 62.5
Operational Groups (37) 67.6 45.9 27.0 81.1 32.4 13.5 29.7 24.3 83.8 51.4 97.3
Other ESIF, ERASMUS (20) 45.0 55.0 45.0 55.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 35.0 65.0 60.0 90.0
National/regional public (11) 54.5 45.5 27.3 63.6 63.6 18.2 54.5 0.0 72.7 81.8 90.9
Projects: other sources (15) 40.0 33.3 33.3 66.7 40.0 13.3 20.0 26.7 53.3 26.7 73.3
Non-projects with funding (25) 48.0 60.0 52.0 84.0 48.0 28.0 36.0 32.0 76.0 56.0 92.0
Non-projects not funded (14) 28.6 57.1 14.3 57.1 42.9 21.4 35.7 35.7 42.9 21.4 64.3
All projects/non-projects (200) 53.0 55.0 45.5 58.0 46.0 24.0 40.0 30.5 79.5 57.5 85.5
Key: A: advisor; B: business; E: education; F: individual farmer or forester; G: public body; M: processing or marketing SME;
N: NGO; O: processing or marketing producer organisation; R: researcher; S: representative/supporting organisation.

Figure 6. Percentage of each type of project and non-project activity by coordinator. Key: see Table 3;
also X: other.

For other types of projects (and for non-project activities), no one type of actor is domi-
nant as a coordinator, although business coordinates more than 20 per cent of the
reviewed non-project activities. Furthermore, around 20 per cent of non-EIP-AGRI part-
nerships are coordinated by farmers’ organisations and almost 30 per cent of non-funded
non-project activities are led by individual farmers.
All types of AKIS actors participate in all forms of partnerships, and high levels of
individual farmer and/or farmers’ organisation representation can occur in both EIP-
AGRI projects and non-EIP-AGRI partnerships. The involvement of some groups of
actors (G, N) as formal partners is especially low in our sampled H2020 projects and
OGs, and non-EIP-AGRI options may be better suited to fostering co-innovation
between these actors and farmers and foresters. Clearly, therefore, the latter are viable
alternatives for multi-actor innovation partnerships involving users.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 13

Co-innovation in multi-actor partnerships

The potential success of the co-innovation process was judged to be medium or high in
almost all the 200 reviewed multi-actor partnerships.
Since ‘success’ is very difficult to quantify directly, interviewees were asked to evaluate
the performance of their co-innovation activity according to four rather more tangible
criteria on a 1–10 Likert scale where 1 was ‘very low’ and 10 was ‘very high’. The
mean score among the 200 projects was 8.2 for innovation, 7.7 for research and acqui-
sition of new knowledge, 7.8 for communication and outreach, and 8.1 for success of
implementation (i.e. what has been achieved (to date) compared to what was initially
intended) (Table 4). Also, LIAISON interviewers assessed the level of co-innovation in
the reviewed projects. Only 10 per cent of the projects and 3 per cent of the non-
project activities were judged to involve only a low level of co-innovation.
A more in-depth and complex evaluation strategy would be necessary to demonstrate
adequately the degree of co-innovation in the reviewed multi-actor partnerships, but the
shared assessment of the participants and LIAISON interviewers was that co-innovation
in agriculture, forestry and related value chains was occurring in activities both within
and outside the EIP-AGRI.

Discussion
Almost all the reviewed multi-actor partnerships claimed medium to high levels of co-
innovation. On average, our interviewees scored the potential success of their co-inno-
vation activity highly, while the interviewers assessed the level of co-innovation as being
‘medium’ or ‘high’ in over 90 per cent of instances (Table 4). Clearly, therefore, in addition
to the EIP-AGRI, multi-actor co-innovation in agriculture, forestry and related value
chains involving users can be supported by many other policy instruments in Europe,
both EU and non-EU, while several non-project activities, including formal and informal
partnerships, and even activities with no external funding, have the same potential.
Our data also suggest, however, that although the reviewed partnerships can between
them address a wide range of challenges, solutions and innovations, certain types of part-
nerships can more strongly promote the inclusion of specific groups of AKIS actors (e.g.

Table 4. Potential success of the co-innovation process by funding source as assessed by (a)
interviewees according to four criteria and (b) interviewers (% of projects).
Interviewees’ criteria Interviewers’ assessments (%)
Funding source and type I K C F High Medium Low
Horizon 2020 RIA and IA (34) 8.5 8.7 8.5 8.4 56.3 43.7 0
H2020 Them. Networks (16) 8.3 7.1 8.5 8.8 53.3 40.0 6.7
Interreg A, B and C projects (20) 7.4 7.1 7.3 8.0 47.4 36.8 15.8
LIFE+ and LIFE projects (8) 7.9 7.0 8.4 7.4 87.5 0.0 12.5
Operational Groups (37) 8.0 7.7 7.8 8.0 52.6 42.1 5.3
Other ESIF, ERASMUS (20) 8.0 7.2 8.1 7.8 27.8 55.6 16.6
National/regional public (11) 8.5 8.3 7.3 7.5 36.4 54.5 9.1
Projects: other sources (15) 8.5 8.5 7.3 9.1 46.7 33.3 20.0
Non-projects with funding (25) 8.4 8.0 7.2 7.4 54.2 41.7 4.2
Non-projects not funded (14) 8.7 6.9 6.8 8.8 71.4 21.4 7.1
All projects/non-projects (200) 8.2 7.7 7.8 8.1 51.8 39.9 8.3
Key: I: innovation; K: acquisition of new knowledge; C: communication/outreach; F: fulfilment of initial expectations.
14 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

Interreg for public bodies) or are more suited to particular topics (e.g. LIFE(+) for
environment-related issues). This illustrates the need to recognise and maintain the
diversity of co-innovation opportunities for AKIS actors so as to ensure that a wide
range of challenges is tackled by different types of solutions. This is necessary in view
of the increasing complexity of societal challenges for which there are no ‘one size fits
all’ innovations (Ingram et al. 2020).
Any analysis of the co-innovation landscape in Europe by the EC, policy-makers and
policy implementers, as well as prospective innovation actors (cf. Kujala, Virkkala, and
Lähdesmäki 2020) must, therefore, recognise that a multiplicity of approaches ‘share
the space’ in the AKIS. For the latter group, this means being aware of the numerous
different options for fostering co-innovation. The EIP-AGRI has a unique and valuable
place in this co-innovation landscape but cannot engage equally effectively with all
groups of AKIS actors for all purposes and should not be expected to do so. For some
actors and some purposes, alternative routes to co-innovation may be more appropriate.
Based on these assertions, we make three general recommendations that are addressed
primarily to the EC, as well as national and (where appropriate) sub-national policy-
makers and policy implementers.
Increase user participation in co-innovation and capitalise on any competitive advan-
tage of particular types of intervention to appeal to harder-to-reach groups.
2014–2020 has been the first EU programming period where, through the EIP-AGRI,
there has been an obligation to adopt the multi-actor approach. Some consortia deemed
to be adequate in earlier EU Framework Programme projects would no longer be so in
view of the emphasis in H2020 on farmer-advisor-researcher cooperation and knowledge
sharing. The Interreg programme also has a specific requirement in terms of the involve-
ment of multiple types of actors. This is not so for other funding instruments, such as
LIFE(+), ERASMUS+ and for the reviewed non-project activities. Our findings suggest
that the absence of such a stipulation has not necessarily led to users being excluded
from such partnerships. On the contrary, users seem willing to take a prominent role
in other types of reviewed partnerships, such as projects supported by other European
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and non-project activities (Figure 6). Even so,
other programmes can learn from DG AGRI’s strategy of co-designing the EIP-AGRI
with the SCAR SWG on AKIS, which includes users’ representatives as well as policy-
makers and academics, to enhance user participation.
Nonetheless, a simple requirement to include users in partnerships is unlikely to over-
come the barriers to their effective participation. Inclusion in a multi-actor partnership
does not necessarily guarantee involvement in the co-innovation process (Neef and
Neubert 2011). Our data show that a broad range of actors beyond researchers, advisors
and farmers/foresters take part in activities that are judged to involve high levels of co-
innovation, but we did not explore possible hierarchies in these partnerships. This is an
important topic for further research in order to understand how effective participation
could be better incentivised or supported.
Administrative demands associated with the ‘projectification’ of innovation support
can lead to the consistent exclusion of some groups (Andersson 2009; Arora-Jonsson
2017). Even in the EIP-AGRI, there is a continuing dominance of academic partners
in our reviewed (especially H2020) projects (Table 3 and Figure 6). User participation
in project consortia is to be encouraged, but this is not the only option for participation
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 15

in co-innovation. Many H2020 projects have the financial resources to set up ‘practice-
led innovation networks’, ‘farmer innovation groups’ or similar structures to foster co-
innovation between the ‘consortium’ and the ‘larger periphery’ ‘all along the project’.
For relevant topics both in the forthcoming Horizon Europe and other EU and non-
EU programmes, similar arrangements could be specified as a prerequisite for funding
and included as a criterion in the proposal evaluation process.
Informal co-innovation networks that adopt a ‘localised approach’ and are more
‘bureaucratically light’ than project consortia are attractive alternative options for
some groups of actors. They may give users more ‘space’ to co-innovate ‘on their own
terms’. More research is needed on the extent to which these ‘alternative’ approaches
foster co-innovation and on lessons that can be learned concerning novel forms of
policy intervention. For example, following evaluation of a ‘concept note’, co-innovation
partnerships could perhaps be awarded a small ‘pump-priming’ grant with no financial
or other reporting obligations, apart from the need to prepare one or two EIP-AGRI
‘Practice Abstracts’ or equivalent outputs at the end of the co-innovation process.
Earlier, we emphasised the relevance of the embeddedness of users in social networks.
In the 2021–2027 EU programming period, farm advisory services will promote user
involvement in the AKIS and participation in OGs.3 Such an obligation could apply to
some of the alternative opportunities for fostering co-innovation, and may require tar-
geted training for advisors on the portfolio of available options at European, national,
regional and/or local levels. Other facilitators, such as innovation brokers and ‘champion
farmers’, should also be encouraged to consider options for co-innovation beyond the
EIP-AGRI. Some harder-to-reach groups that do not use advisory services could
perhaps be mobilised through community-level knowledge brokering hubs as proposed
by Fieldsend et al. (2019), although it must be accepted that many users are simply not
interested in co-innovation.
Creating synergies between policies and programmes remains challenging but provides
potential for improved and differentiated involvement of users.
Our data have shown that users and/or their representative organisations are partici-
pating in co-innovation partnerships funded by many different programmes, as well as in
non-project activities including those without external funding (Table 3). Also, the same
multi-actor partnerships may be active in different types of projects (e.g. OGs and Inter-
reg). These findings illustrate the value of synergies between policies and programmes in
fostering user participation.
Enabling synergies between its programmes has long been an aspiration of the EU (EC
2014). The EIP-AGRI itself links policies and instruments concerned with co-innovation.
There is a risk that more coordination may lead to even more bureaucracy, but there is poten-
tial for more sharing of good practice between programmes. For example, researchers and
educational institutes mostly occupy a leading role in EIP-AGRI projects, while non-EIP-
AGRI projects render a more diverse picture concerning actor participation. EIP-AGRI
can learn lessons on widening user participation from these other programmes, suggesting
that following through on the ambition of the EIP-AGRI to build bridges with other pro-
grammes is of great importance. By contrast, other programmes might consult with users
and their representative organisations on how to make them, literally, more user friendly.
Consistency in terminology should be improved, and other programmes might use-
fully adopt terms used with success in the EIP-AGRI such as ‘AKIS’ and ‘multi-actor’.
16 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

However, the clumsy use of specialist terminology will discourage potentially interested
partners and thus create division between those which are capable of being involved in
such projects and those which are not. LIAISON research has indicated that ‘interactive
innovation’ is an example of a term that is not well understood by AKIS actors. More
research is required on the intelligent use of terminology in programming documents.
Synergies can be improved concerning support for the development of co-innovation
partnerships. A helpful step would be to explore the potential for common actions
between existing expert ‘contact points’, such as the EU’s ‘National Contact Points’ for
the H2020, Interreg and LIFE programmes, on the cross-cutting theme of co-innovation.
The CAP networks that will be set up by the Member States under their forthcoming
CAP Strategic Plans will be required to service the information needs of a diversity of
AKIS actors, not just academic organisations.4 Their expert support should extend
beyond the EIP-AGRI to the wider range of programmes that can support co-innovation.
We do not advocate the creation of yet more project databases to complement those that
already exist. Such databases take a lot of resources to maintain and frequently contain
errors and omissions, a shortcoming that even applies to the EIP-AGRI project database.
Earlier, we expressed concern about the relatively slow roll-out of the EIP-AGRI in the
post-socialist EU Member States and noted that this issue might not be solved rapidly.
The consequence is that there is a gap in EU support for co-innovation in some
regions of the EU. Until such time that the EIP-AGRI is fully functioning, there is a par-
ticular need to highlight to users the opportunities for co-innovation provided by other
funding programmes.
More attention should be paid to the role of value chain co-innovation in the AKIS.
With reference to the classification of Lamprinopolou et al. (2014), the involvement of
some direct demand/enterprise (categories B and M) in our reviewed projects is relatively
low (Table 3). This important activity of co-innovation along the value chain in the AKIS
(EU SCAR 2012) is probably under-represented in our sample. Similarly, the involve-
ment of indirect demand actors (categories G and N) is also low in some types of reviewed
projects, notably OGs. This result may in part be a consequence of the continuing strong
emphasis in policy discourse (and in the content of databases) on the research/
researcher-led co-innovation paradigm. It might also reflect a distinction between the
implicit EIP-AGRI focus on innovation as some kind of broad ‘public good’ and the
‘private good’ approach of food chain actors.
Many farmers and foresters prefer to co-innovate with those with whom they have
developed trustful relationships through day-to-day contact such as input suppliers,
food processors, retailers and indeed consumers, in activities that they see may result
in fairly rapid financial returns. But many of these partnerships are, therefore, ‘under
the radar’ of both policy-makers and academia. Analysis of them can yield further valu-
able insights into the nature of co-innovation, while some coordination at the policy level
might further enhance the impacts of this type of multi-actor partnership.

Conclusion
The EIP-AGRI is clearly an important driver of co-innovation in the AKIS, but not the
only one. It will receive a welcome increase in funding in the 2021–2027 EU program-
ming period but only a few farms will ever directly participate in EIP-AGRI activities
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 17

(Fotheringham et al. 2016) and certain groups of farms are likely to be disconnected from
these and other formal programmes. This is in part owing to the potentially weak
implementation of the EIP-AGRI in the post-socialist EU Member States. While there
is considerable overlap between the programmes reviewed in our study concerning the
types of challenges addressed, solutions proposed and types of innovations supported,
there is also a differentiation between them, and indeed there is a high added value in
ensuring different starting points (e.g. from an environment perspective, or educational
perspective). It is, therefore, necessary to accept the EIP-AGRI as just one part of a
complex matrix of multi-actor co-innovation activities across Europe and the interlink-
ing of agriculture, forestry and agri-food chain-related co-innovation programmes as a
worthy aspiration. This should include the more effective targeting of programmes at
groups of actors, especially users, that are currently not sufficiently engaged with them.

Notes
1. We prefer the term ‘user’ to ‘end user’ as it better reflects the farmers’ and foresters’ role in
the innovation process.
2. In contrast to Knotter et al. (2019), we disaggregated our data for ‘individual farmers and
foresters’ (F) from those of ‘representative/supporting organisations’ (O) such as Chambers
of Agriculture. In Table 3, an additional column (F/S) has been inserted to show the percen-
tage of each type of project containing at least one representative from the two groups.
3. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules
on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the Common agri-
cultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee
Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and
repealing Regulation (EU) No. 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
and Regulation (EU) No. 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
{SEC(2018)305final} -{SWD(2018)301final, p. 101.
4. Article 113 of {SEC(2018)305final} -{SWD(2018)301final}, p. 109.

Acknowledgements
We thank all partners in the LIAISON consortium for their contributions to this research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was conducted within the LIAISON project. This project has received funding from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No.
773418. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the EU.

Notes on contributors
Dr Andrew Fieldsend is a Senior Researcher at the Research Institute of Agricultural Economics
and a workpackage leader in the EU H2020 project LIAISON. He was a founder member of the
18 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

SCAR AKIS SWG and has collaborated with farmers in development and innovation in several
countries worldwide.
Evelien Cronin is a PhD researcher in the Social Sciences Department of the Flemish Institute for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Research (ILVO). As a workpackage leader in the EU H2020
project LIAISON, she is responsible for the coordination and implementation of the in-depth
case studies on multi-actor innovation partnerships.
Dr Eszter Varga is a Senior Researcher at the Research Institute of Agricultural Economics with
expertise in agricultural innovation, knowledge sharing and digitalisation in rural areas. As well
as participating in the EU H2020 project LIAISON, she works as an evaluator of the national
rural development programmes.
Dr Szabolcs Biró is Head of the Agricultural Policy Analysis Department at the Research Institute
of Agricultural Economics. He is participating as a Senior Research Fellow in several EU H2020
projects (LIAISON, SHERPA) and is an evaluator of the modernisation effects of rural develop-
ment programmes in Hungary.
Dr Elke Rogge is Scientific Director of the Social Science Unit at the Flemish Research Institute for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO). Her research mainly focusses on territorial governance
and multi-actor collaboration in the context of food systems. She is a senior member of the
LIAISON project team.

ORCID
Andrew F. Fieldsend http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9297-5870
Eszter Varga http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1615-8032
Szabolcs Biró http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1029-0836

References
Albrecht, H. 1963. “Zum heutigen Stand der adoption-Forschung in den Vereinigten Staaten.”
Berichte über Landwirtschaft 41: 233–282.
Andersson, K. 2009. “Orchestrating Regional Development Through Projects: The ‘Innovation
Paradox’ in Rural Finland.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 11 (3): 187–201.
doi:10.1080/15239080903033796.
Arora-Jonsson, S. 2017. “The Realm of Freedom in New Rural Governance: Micropolitics of
Democracy in Sweden.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 79:
58–69. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.12.010.
Augustyn, A., and G. Nemes. 2014. “Catching Up with the West? Europeanisation of Rural Policies
in Hungary and Poland.” Studies in Agricultural Economics 116 (3): 114–121. doi:10.7896/j.
1419.
Brackertz, N. 2007. Who Is Hard to Reach and Why? ISR Working Paper. Hawthorn: Swinburne
University of Technology.
Chávez, M., and F. Hartwich. 2011. “Innovation Behaviour among Smallholders: Evidence from
the Peach Value Chain in Cochabamba, Bolivia.” Paper presented at the conference on inter-
national research on food security, natural resource management and rural development,
Germany, October 5–7.
DG AGRI. 2018. Agriresearch Factsheet: EU Agricultural Research and Innovation in a Nutshell.
Brussels: European Commission. Accessed March 24, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/
horizon2020/document.cfm?doc_id=51891.
Dockès, A.-C., T. Tisenkopfs, and B. Bock. 2011. WP1: Reflection Paper on AKIS. Paper prepared
for the SCAR Collaborative Working Group on AKIS.
Dogliotti, S., M. García, S. Peluffo, J. Dieste, A. Pedemonte, G. Bacigalupe, M. Scarlato, F.
Alliaume, J. Alvarez, and M. Chiappe. 2014. “Co-innovation of Family Farm Systems: A
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 19

Systems Approach to Sustainable Agriculture.” Agricultural Systems 126: 76–86. doi:10.1016/j.

agsy.2013.02.009.
EC. 2014. Enabling Synergies Between European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020
and Other Research, Innovation and Competitiveness-Related Union Programmes. Guidance
for Policy-Makers and Implementing Bodies. Brussels: European Commission.
EIP-AGRI SP. 2016. Operational Groups: Turning Your Idea into Innovation; Update 2016.
Brussels: EIP-AGRI Service Point. Accessed March 24, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/
agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_brochure_operational_groups_update_2016_2016_en_
web.pdf.
EIP-AGRI SP. 2017. Horizon 2020 Multi-actor Projects. Brussels: EIP-AGRI Service Point.
Accessed March 24, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_
brochure_multi-actor_projects_2017_en_web.pdf.
EU SCAR. 2012. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition – A Reflection
Paper. Brussels: European Commission.
FAO. 2014. The State of Food and Agriculture: Innovation in Family Farming. Rome: FAO.
Fieldsend, A., E. Cronin, and K. Rønningen. 2019. “‘Light-touch’ Review Database.” Deliverable
3.1 of the EU H2020 Project LIAISON.
Fieldsend, A. F., Y. Voitovska, F. Toirov, R. Markov, and N. Alexandrova. 2019. “A Sustainable
Approach to Fostering Agricultural Knowledge Sharing in Conflict-Affected Areas of Eastern
Ukraine.” NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 89: 100293. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2019.02.004.
Fotheringham, J., A. Hetherington, A. Kobilsky, B. Rohmer, T. Chever, C. Renault, V. Romieu,
et al. 2016. Evaluation Study of the Implementation of the European Innovation Partnership
for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability: Final Report. Brussels: European Commission.
Gorton, M., L. Hubbard, and C. Hubbard. 2009. “The Folly of European Union Policy Transfer:
Why the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Does Not Fit Central and Eastern Europe.”
Regional Studies 43 (10): 1305–1317. doi:10.1080/00343400802508802.
Hamunen, K., M. Appelstrand, T. Hujala, M. Kurttila, N. Sriskandarajah, L. Vilkriste, L. Westberg,
and J. Tikkanen. 2015. “Defining Peer-to-Peer Learning – from an Old ‘Art of Practice’ to a New
Mode of Forest Owner Extension.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 21 (4):
293–307. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2014.939199.
Hoffman, V. 2005. “Book Review: Five Editions (1962–2003) of Everett Rogers’s Diffusion of
Innovations.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 13 (2): 147–158.
Hurley, P., J. Hall, J. Lyon, J. Tsouvalis, D. Rose, and R. Little. 2020. Inclusive Design of Post-Brexit
Agri-environmental Policy: Identifying and Engaging the Harder to Reach Stakeholders, an
Empirical Study. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; Reading: University of Reading. doi:10.
15131/shef.data.12506123.
Ingram, J., P. Gaskell, J. Mills, and J. Dwyer. 2020. “How Do We Enact Co-innovation with
Stakeholders in Agricultural Research Projects? Managing the Complex Interplay Between
Contextual and Facilitation Processes.” Journal of Rural Studies 78: 65–77. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2020.06.003.
Kilpatrick, S., and S. Johns. 2007. “How Farmers Learn: Different Approaches to Change.” The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 9 (4): 151–164. doi:10.1080/
13892240385300231.
Klerkx, L., B. van Mierlo, and C. Leeuwis. 2012. “Evolution of Systems Approaches to Agricultural
Innovation: Concepts, Analysis and Interventions.” In Farming Systems Research Into the 21st
Century: The New Dynamic, edited by I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon, and B. Dedieu, 457–483.
Netherlands: Springer.
Knickel, K., G. Brunori, S. Rand, and J. Proost. 2009. “Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for
Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic
Approaches.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15 (2): 131–146. doi:10.1080/
13892240902909064.
Knierim, A., K. Boenning, M. Caggiano, A. Cristóvão, V. Dirimanova, T. Koehnen, P. Labarthe,
and K. Prager. 2015. “The AKIS Concept and Its Relevance in Selected EU Member States.”
Outlook on Agriculture 44 (1): 29–36. doi:10.5367/oa.2015.0194.
20 A. F. FIELDSEND ET AL.

Knierim, A., K. Koutsouris, S. Mathé, T. H. Ndah, L. Temple, B. Triomphe, and E. Wielinga. 2015.
Support to Innovation Processes: A Theoretical Point of Departure. Deliverable 1.1 of the EU
H2020 Project AgriSpin.
Knotter, S., D. Kretz, and K. Zeqo. 2019. Operational Groups Assessment 2018. Final Report.
Brussels: IDEA Consult, February 8. Accessed March 25, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/
agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_operational_groups_assessment_report_2018.pdf.
Koutsouris, A., E. Papa, H. Chiswell, H. Cooreman, L. Debruyne, J. Ingram, and F. Marchand.
2017. The Analytical Framework: Demonstration Farms as Multi-purpose Structures,
Providing Multi-functional Processes to Enhance Peer-to-Peer Learning in the Context of
Innovation for Sustainable Agriculture. Deliverable of the EU H2020 Project AgriDemo-F2F.
Kujala, P., S. Virkkala, and M. Lähdesmäki. 2020. “Authorities as Enablers in Rural Business
Support Policy Regime – Case Study Finland. Sociologia Ruralis. doi:10.1111/soru.12326.
Lamprinopolou, C., A. Renwick, L. Klerkx, F. Hermans, and D. Roep. 2014. “Application of an
Integrated Systemic Framework for Analysing Agricultural Innovation Systems and
Informing Innovation Policies: Comparing the Dutch and Scottish Agrifood Sectors.”
Agricultural Systems 129: 40–54. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.001.
Lundvall, B-Å. 2016. “National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning.” In The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope, edited by B.-Å.
Lundvall, 85–106. London: Anthem Press.
Nederlof, E. S., M. Wongtschowski, and F. Van Der Lee. 2011. Putting Heads Together:
Agricultural Innovation Platforms in Practice. Bulletin 396. Amsterdam: KIT Publishers.
Neef, A., and D. Neubert. 2011. “Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a con-
ceptual framework for reflection and decision-making.” Agriculture and Human Values 28 (2):
179–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9272-z.
Nemes, G., C. High, and A. Augustyn. 2014. “Beyond New Rural Paradigm: Project State and
Collective Reflexive Agency.” In Territorial Cohesion in Rural Europe: The Relational Turn in
Rural Development, edited by A. Copus and P. de Lima, 212–235. London: Routledge.
O’Neill, E., U. Graebener, G. Kuperus, and K. Lawrence. 2012. Resources for Implementing the
WWF Project & Programme Standards. Woking: WWF UK.
Oreszczyn, S., A. Lane, and S. Carr. 2010. “The Role of Networks of Practice and Webs of
Influencers on Farmers’ Engagement with and Learning About Agricultural Innovations.”
Journal of Rural Studies 26 (4): 404–417. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.03.003.
Pokrivčák, J., P. Ciaian, and D. Drabik. 2019. “Perspectives of Central and Eastern European
Countries on Research and Innovation in the CAP.” Euro Choices 18 (1): 26–32. doi:10.1111/
1746-692X.12220.
Rivera, W. M., G. Alex, J. Hanson, and R. Birner. 2006. “Enabling Agriculture: The Evolution and
Promise of Agricultural Knowledge Frameworks.” In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual
Conference of the AIAEE, Clearwater Beach FL, USA, 580–591, College Station, TX: AIAEE.
Rogers, E. M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
Swain, N. 2013. “Agriculture ‘East of the Elbe’ and the Common Agricultural Policy.” Sociologia
Ruralis 53 (3): 369–389. doi:10.1111/soru.12016.
Swinnen, J., and R. Kuijpers. 2019. “Value Chain Innovations for Technology Transfer in
Developing and Emerging Economies: Conceptual Issues, Typology, and Policy
Implications.” Food Policy 83: 298–309. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.07.013.