This report compiles country-reports that describe the agri-food research landscape in 2006/2007 in 33 countries associated to the 6th Framework Programme (FP6), which defined the European for the period from 2002 to 2006. Each country-report presents information about the main research players in 2006/2007 and about the current trends and the future needs for research topics and for the organisation of the agri-food research system. 

This document provides a review of existing reports regarding the agri-food research landscape in 2006/2007 for 14 EU countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey) and also explores trends and needs in other EU or associated countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Kingdom).

This report presents the results of a study that shall contribute to provide information on the national organisation of agricultural research and an overall picture of developments in agricultural research in 33 selected countries (current EU28 plus Iceland, Israel, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey). The study covers all areas related to agricultural and food research research including research dedicated to emerging challenges of the European agricultural and food sector in 2006/2007.

The ‘Mapping Report’ is the synthesis of the statistical information and the survey results available to describe agrifood research in European countries. The main source of information was the results of a bibliometric analysis (in the EU-33 countries), a web-assisted survey (in the EU-12+2 countries) and the country reports (for the EU-15 countries) prepared in the AgriMapping project frame in 2006 and 2007. When relevant, available complementary statistics were also used.

The study describes the historic development of the Danish Agricultural Advisory Services (DAAS). This is the case of a national advisory system owned and managed by the farmer organizations and financed with public subsidies combined with farmer/user payments, gradually developed to full user payment. The links and relations between the empowerment of farmers and their organizations, their evolving roles in advisory systems, and the innovative financial mechanisms in extension, especially pull-mechanisms, are analyzed.

This presentation at the GCARD Montpellier, in March 2010,  focuses on the Danish model for agricultural advisory services.

The purpose of this Guidance Note is to help countries to assess the quality of public spending on  science, technology, and innovation (STI). It adopts a results-oriented framework, combining the consolidation of STI expenditures with the analysis of their main outputs, intermediate outcomes, and developmental impact. The framework proposes the analysis of three main sources of deficiencies: (i) program design/implementation; (ii) institutional conditions; and the (iii) composition and level of public expenditure.

As part of the EU funded AgriSpin project (www.agrispin.eu), which aimed at “creating space for innovations” in agriculture across Europe, this contribution addresses the above mentioned knowledge gaps by a. elaborating a generic typology appropriate to capture the variety of ISS, b. structuring selected innovations along the degree of technological change and coordination levels, and c.

This study aims at contributing to a better understanding of the linkage between supply chain performance and possible performance improvement with respect to food quality and safety. Therefore, the paper addresses the question whether the level of collaborative planning and close supply chain relationships could help improve quality and safety of organic supply chains. The study was conducted as a part of the multi-disciplinary EU-wide survey of organic supply chains, carried out in 8 European countries.

This article therefore analyses whether agricultural advisors representing companies that do not sell pesticides (independent advisors) are more likely to recommend reduced pesticide use than agricultural advisors who represent companies with an economic interest in selling pesticides (supplier-affiliated advisors). However, we would not necessarily expect a crude relationship between economic incentive and higher pesticide recommendations. After all, advisors have to justify their recommendations to their customers, the farmers.