The profound changes in European policy for farms advisory services (FAS) require a period of experimentation and results observation before the new CAP 2021-2027. This paper focuses on Measure 2 of Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014-2020. The paper is focused on the description of case studies in three Italian regions: Campania, Emilia-Romagna and Veneto. Different Measure 2 – sub-measure 2.1 models are analyzed through a qualitative approach, using a conceptual framework adapted by Birner et al. (2009).

This paper is aimed at raising the discussion on frameworks and practices to analyse and support of innovation processes of operational groups in rural development policy. The analysis highlights an increasing interest of the current evaluation and research practices on interactive innovation processes, collaborative learning and capacity development both at individual, collective and systems levels. Particularly, transformative-oriented frameworks have been developed in view of supporting capacity development in innovation systems

The aim of this research is to explore the different policy frameworks adopted by the Italian regions to support cooperation for innovation projects in RDPs in the period 2007-2013. These were analysed against the conceptual background outlined by the European Commission and the international literature on the interactive approach to innovation processes (EC, 2013). The study is supported by the use of a mixed-methods approach, based on desk and on field research, qualitative and quantitative methods

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will vary for different groups of rural population, with the highest impact expected to be on farmers and other vulnerable groups, especially women and youth. Targeted support is feasible only by activating a network of actors or organizations within agricultural innovation systems (AIS) and promoting customized technologies and practices suitable for location specific contexts.

The EU rural development policy has addressed challenges related to climate change in agriculture by introducing public voluntary schemes, which financially support the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. Several factors, most of which are non-financial ones, drive adoption and continuation of these schemes by farmers. Despite the importance of these factors, only a few studies explore their role in the European context. This paper contributes to filling this gap from a twofold perspective.

This study wants to analyse the extent to which the different research and innovation (R&I) instruments designed under the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP-AGRI) look for synergies and intensify effective linkages with each other to strengthen the respective dynamics. The study is based on a case study representing the Italian EIP-AGRI system. Data are collected through direct interviews, semistructured questionnaires, focus groups and workshops.

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.

The report synthesises the research conducted under the PRO AKIS project for the topic "Designing, implementing and maintaining agricultural/rural networks to enhance farmers’ ability to innovate in cooperation with other rural actors".

A “farmers’ market” identifies a common area where farmers meet periodically to sell food products which do not need to be processed before consumption. Farmers’ markets have recently experienced steady growth mainly due to increasing demand for traditional foods and rising consumers’ interest towards locally produced food products. It is also the case that they provide transparency along the supply chain and decrease information asymmetries.

This paper describes the research path followed by a team of researchers who had investigated the nitrate problem in a case study area, and who became aware of the low impact of their data on the policy debate and on the practices that – as the research team saw it – had given rise to the problem in the first place. They embarked on a series of interactions first with participatory action researchers from the SLIM project (see Fig.