This chapter describes the Swiss agricultural innovation system (AIS). It identifies the actors in agricultural innovation and their roles, describes the main trends in public investments in agricultural research and development (R&D), discusses the impact of agricultural policies on AIS, and describes initiatives to foster agri-food innovation. It also depicts institutional co-ordination between regional innovation systems (RIS) and the Federal Office for Agriculture’s (FOAG) advisory services at the canton level.
This evaluation is being commissioned within the framework contract for Evaluation of the EC’s main policies and strategies which was signed on 10 April 2007 between the EC and a consortium led by the German company Particip and composed of ADE (Aide à la Décision Économique Belgium), DIE (Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik), DRNI (Italian Development Researchers’ Network), ECDPM (European Centre for Development Policy Management), and ODI (Overseas Development Institute).
The European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP-AGRI), which can be perceived as a platform based on interaction among farmers, researchers, and advisors/extensionists, represents a useful tool for a better understanding of applied innovation processes.
Recently, Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKISs) have gained considerable attention in scientific and political forums in the European Union (EU). AKIS is considered a key concept in identifying, analysing and assessing the various actors in the agricultural sector as well as their communication and interaction for innovation processes. Using qualitative expert interviews and organizational mapping, the features of national AKISs were investigated in selected EU member states (Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, Portugal and the UK).
This study examines the role of public–private partnerships in international agricultural research. It is intended to provide policymakers, researchers, and business decisionmakers with an understanding of how such partnerships operate, how they promote the exchange of knowledge and technology, and how they contribute to poverty reduction.
In this book, the authors assessed the role of biotechnology innovation for sustainable development in emerging and developing economies. This book compiles studies that each illustrate the potential, demonstrated value and challenges of biotechnology applications for sustainable agricultural innovation and/or industrial development in a national, regional and international context.
The main objective of this paper is to describe the AgroFE and Agrof-MM projects. This projects aims to develop an agroforestry training system based on a common framework and core content, and to promote training at European level. The knowledge databank is a component of the project training system. It aims to gather and share a set of documents, resources that partners can use and which will have been accessed by learners and the public users.
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 paper presents the results of an exploratory case-study analysis of a corn stover value-chain development process in two regions: Ontario (Canada) and Flanders (Belgium). Applying an integrated analytical framework and comparing the results with literature, we identified a number of barriers for novel value-chain development and state seven concrete actions that value-chain actors can take to overcome these barriers.
This article analyzes the politics of localizing food systems at play in the FPCs of Ghent (Belgium) and Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, USA). The focus is on the development of urban agriculture in both cities, and includes an analysis of the politics of scale through three scalar practices of scale framing, scale negotiating, and scale matching. This analysis reveals that differences in the way in which the politics of scale are played out in both FPCs resulted in the creation of different opportunities and constraints for urban agriculture development