Since 2007 the EU Member States have been called up to set up a comprehensive and operational Farm Advisory System (FAS). In Greece, though the lack of a structured advisory system made its provision obligatory, FAS is not in place. Advisors along with officers involved in FAS planning point out the prolonged delay, raise hopes and worries about its future implementation, and acknowledge that:

• FAS can be the backbone of farming in Greece. This is important for private consultants who, as part of the support they provide to farmers wishing to have access into EU subsidised schemes, also provide advice to those farmers for free. Advisors’ concern is the potential connection of the provision of advice in certain thematic domains with the right to support farmers when applying for the relevant EU programmes; this will make it obligatory for consultants to participate in FAS.

• Advisors’ training is a critical element for the successful FAS implementation; it should provide advisors with updated knowledge and skills (especially soft and digital skills) to get them integrated into the system.

• Apart from farmers’ compliance with the CAP regulations, the content of advice should be matched with their interest for financial sustainability. Producers do not easily agree on procedures/ practices increasing their production cost, requiring more work or requiring additional controls.

• Advice provision should be monitored and controlled by experienced personnel.

• In Greece, the implementation of policy tools is often governed by a culture prioritising the absorption of available EU resources at the expense of being efficient in terms of reaching the objectives of policies.

More at https://www.agrilink2020.eu

The European regulation of the "Farm Advisory System" (FAS) aims to "provide voluntary access for any farmer to accredited advisory bodies" (https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/instruction-2015-823). In France, the FAS procedure has been decentralised: the accreditation of networks grouping one or more organisations to provide advice is handled by the DRAAF (Direction Régionale de l'Alimentation, de l'Agriculture et de la Forêt), DAAF in the overseas departments and regions.

The advice given concerns various topics aimed at better disseminating the principles of agroecology (see https://agriculture.gouv.fr/le-systeme-de-conseil-agricole-sca-pour-acc…). The FAS networks are the only ones able to issue "cross-compliance attestations" and level 1 attestations of environmental certification, that can be taken into account for CAP controls.

The Ministry of Agriculture considers that there is already a strong national advisory policy, based on a particular method of financing (tax on agricultural income called "CASDAR" around 140M€/year). The FAS regulation was interpreted as a recognition of this pre-existing system and helps to strengthen interactions between organisations. It includes very little additional funding (reduced use of the 2nd pillar). Despite a slow start, France is now entirely covered by officially recognised FAS bodies. The main accredited organisations are the chambers of agriculture, as well as some cooperatives.

A detailed report on the application of this measure in France is available: https://www.agrilink2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/AgriLink-EUFAS-a….

The boundary of SAAF is the continental area of Portugal. The Islands of Azores and Madeira are autonomous regions and have their own EU-FAS. The SAAF is regulated and controlled by the Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development (DGADR) and was formally established in 2016, replacing the former EU-FAS from 2008 (SAF). SAAF is funded through M2.2 of the Rural Development Plan 2014-2020 (RDP2020), but similarly to what happened in other European countries, M2’s implementation was delayed two years, mainly due to the mandatory public tender procedures. The omnibus regulation amends to CAP regulations in 2018 allowed to open new calls and a total of 10 FBOs, mainly national or regional level federations of FBOs, comprising 294 advisory organisations spreading across the country are currently accredited to supply advice. However, the substantial delay in setting in motion M2 compromised the success of the SAAF causing the financial envelope for M2.2 to drop to circa 12 Million euros, which represents less than 0.3% of RDP2020. FBOs are the main advice providers in the country and expect the SAAF to be reinforced in the future, with more funds assigned to it, lower transaction costs, and the possibility to apply to a permanently open, more flexible, and less bureaucratic call. Due to the importance of training, trainers must be supported in a more significant way and that support must be extended to trainees as well, who have had none.

All EU member states have a farm advisory system (FAS) to help farmers to better understand EU regulations with regards to environment, public and animal health, animal welfare and good agricultural and environmental conditions (GEAC). Within the Horizon2020 project AgriLink, we researched how EU-FAS has been implemented in the Netherlands.

The Netherlands has selected five focus areas that accredited advisers provide advice on:

1. Cross compliance

2. Greening requirements

3. Measures related to rural development

4. Requirements for the water directive

5. Use of crop protection products



The ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality appointed the Association of Agricultural Business Advisors (VAB) as the organisation that can accredit agricultural business advisors under FAS. Advisors that are recognised by the VAB are registered in a national FAS registry on the website of the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO). Farmers looking for advice on the topics mentioned above can find advisors in this registry and can also see which advisor has expertise on which of the five domains.

More information can be found on: https://rvo.nl/sites/default/files/2019/04/Vab-leden-naar-BAS-register… and https://vabnet.nl/

The EU-FAS (Farm Advisory Services) in Latvia is governed by the Ministry of Agriculture, administered by the Rural Support Service, while the delivery is granted to advisory organisations on competitive basis. The main provider organisation granted the EU-FAS contract is the Latvia Rural Advisory and Training Centre. The EU-FAS activities are funded from public sources: 2/3 of the finances come from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the remainder is national funding. The maximum cost covered per farmer is 1,500 EUR over the entire programming period (2016-2019). The total number of beneficiaries during this period was 10,500 farmers out of approximately 65,000 farms in Latvia. In 2020-2023 the support per farm is increased to EUR 3000.

Findings:

1. The EU-FAS in Latvia is a unified and nationally-operating system.

2. The application for services is done by farmers in the online application system.

3. The main clients are medium-sized farms.

4. The EU-FAS have contributed to agriculture in Latvia by enhancing farmers’ professionalism and strengthening the role of the independent advisors.

5. The future challenges of the EU-FAS in Latvia include widening the target groups, strengthening the capacities of advisors and addressing new environmental measures.

The main practical recommendation: To ensure efficient delivery of the EU-FAS a user and advisor friendly digital support and management platform should be put in place.

Italian administrative structure and political dynamics resulted in a fragmented agricultural innovation system with regional boundaries, priorities and working modes. It led to a diversified regional situation, where a National description has limited value. As in other EU countries, the implementation of Measure 2 of the Rural Development Plan 2014-2020 had 2 years delay due to incompatibilities between the National/Regional and EU regulations on tender procedure. As a consequence only from 2018 on some regions open the calls, using a National cost simplification calculation.

Main findings about EU-FAS implementation in Italy:

1. Boundaries: high diversity in the implementation. Regions that took very diverse approaches in terms of topics, financing modalities as well as monitoring and control procedures;

2. Identities: advice suppliers regionally differ but in general include farmers’ unions, farmers’ associations, private advisory companies, freelance advisors and public bodies (Regional agencies or their replacing entities where still existing);

3. Financing: at the end of 2019, only 3 regions reported expenditures on Measure 2, while the majority of regions did not report expenses or decided to not open at all the measure. In few cases the regions allocated their own funds;

4. Topics: mainly related to mandatory fulfilments, i.e. animal waste management planning. No topics related to organisational innovation were included, nor topics related to ecosystem services;

5. Monitoring and control procedures vary significantly region by region (within the EU framework). Some very detailed and rigid procedures resulted in conflicts or overwhelming for the applicants.

Farm advisory services in the Slovak Republic are provided in various forms: Basic advisory services, expert advisory services, individual advisory services and Provision of information through specialised web portals.

The basic advisory services are provided by agricultural professional organisations and associations, non-profit organisations, through the National Rural Development Network, consultations offered on the purchase of goods and services from business entities. In the forestry sector, this role is partly fulfilled by professional forest managers. The Expert advisory services, which is the direct transfer of knowledge from science and research to practice, are provided by departmental research institutes, universities and professional associations. The individual advisory services are focused on the specific problems of the applicants which require more intensive cooperation of the adviser. Advice providers are advisers certified by the Agroinstitute Nitra (www.agroinstitut.sk), state enterprise, respectively in the forest field by the National Forest Center Zvolen (www.nlcsk.sk).

The provision of information is provided through specialised web portals and applications, for example www.agroporadenstvo.sk, www.forestportal.sk.

The organisational and executive level is interconnected. Research institutions, professional organisations and associations are also an executive component, as they have certified advisers for the provision of advisory services. At present, there is no effective farm advisory institution operating nationwide.

In Austria, the Farm Advisory System (FAS) is operating within a wider framework for delivering advice to farmers and promoting knowledge and innovation at the farm level. From 2007, the FAS is integrated into the pre-existing farm advisory system of the Chambers of Agriculture (www.lko.at). 10 years later implementation of the FAS was expanded through a cooperation of the Chambers with BioAustria (www.bio-austria.at) in the field of organic agriculture.

The Chambers and BioAustria have been providing extension services for decades. Under the umbrella of the Chambers of Agriculture, several sub-organisations are operating: the Institute for Further Training in Rural Areas (Ländliches Fortbildungsinstitut, LFI), the project and business support unit (LK Projekt GmbH) and the rural youth and rural women's associations.

Both their clients as well as a wider circle of stakeholders value their work and achievements. The quality of the services and products delivered is widely acknowledged, as well as their ability to innovate and adapt in front of the background of new trends and emerging challenges.

By integrating the FAS into existing advisory systems, Austria met the EC requirements, on the one hand. On the other, this approach helped to raise awareness and interest among farmers for the mandatory cross-compliance requirements and triggered them to act. The system of "official counselling" is a key to maintaining a small-structured agriculture and forestry with a high share of family farms, which are dominating in Austria. To obtain more information about the Austrian EU-FAS please read the report (https://www.agrilink2020.eu/countries/austria/).

From the strengths, weaknesses and surprises that we encountered in our Living Labs (LL) we were able to distil a range of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ for creating a successful Living Lab. The aim of this abstract is to offer insights that may be relevant in any LL context and may require co-ordinated action and responses.



DO's: Be realistic: a LL is not the ‘magic’ ingredient for more sustainable farm advisory services that can be applied anytime anywhere. Building trusting relationships with the members of a LL is essential to developing a meaningful goal and longer-term viability of the LL. Identifying a shared concern is fundamental to the initial impetus and maintaining energy in the LL. Seeking and establishing a mandate is a very important part of ‘stepping into’ another’s situation. It may be necessary to sharpen the focus and limit the scope of the LL to make it more likely to succeed. It will be necessary to be inclusive of stakeholders with complementary skills. Engaging skilled and knowledgeable facilitators helps to build trust in the process, while good monitoring processes will help gauge progress and learning. A commitment to be adaptive, learn and be open can promote confidence in joining and sharing and progressing issues. Assess resources and capacities to ensure expectations of what can be achieved are realistic and sustainable. This is part of communicating honestly and openly with stakeholders. Finally, do co-ordinate the process to ensure the LL develops on a solid foundation of stakeholder support and trust.



DON'Ts: Avoid abstract language like "living labs" and "co-creation" near farmers. Do not be afraid to make mistakes, change focus, take control/lead the process. Do not do it alone and do not assume LLs are always the answer.

The biggest challenge of the Living Lab (LL) in Romania was building a trustful relationship with the stakeholders, especially with small farmers. Giurgiu County has suffered a strong process of “collectivization” imposed by the communist regime for about 50 years (see PA9). 30 years after the revolution, farmers are still cautious about what implies their properties or committing them as a group. For years, families commercialized their vegetables individually to the free markets in Bucharest. Approached by many middlemen coming in the area (retaining most of the value from transactions), the Vărăști producers took the risk of selling their products to Carrefour through one of them. One day, the middleman didn't turn up anymore, owning money to the producers, and products to the retailer. It was a “cold lesson” of accessing the market together. Not a very inspiring one. Interested in local products, Carrefour representatives approached the Vărăști group directly, gradually becoming an indirect advisor, supporting them in setting up the cooperative, a packhouse and the production plan. They were officially on the market! When we initiated the LL, the cooperative was expanding. However, we’ve learnt that the success of the cooperative brought financial complications for its members. They didn’t know about the carried fiscal and financial implications. It took couple of meetings to have the small farmers opening up and confessing their problems with the fiscal administration, blocked bank accounts or the cashflow disruption at household level. Listening to each other and sharing, helped them to come together as a community, and us to understand better the LL’s focus towards a practical solution to a real and acute need of the small farmers.

The goal of the AgriLink Living Lab (LL) in Romania was to address the pressing need for a functional knowledge and information exchange system for small-scale farmers (see Practice Abstract No. 9). A multi-stage co-creation process was followed involving experts and end-users to: 1) identify local information needs, 2) draft simple guidance materials, and 3) valorise these materials via training and feedback. The LL started in the south of Romania (Vărăști Commune) with a cooperative of 100+ small farmers (mainly vegetable growers) aiming to professionalise their individual small-scale businesses. A series of meetings was organised with the cooperative leaders, representative members, and an external financial expert. The main need identified was “How can vegetable growers best complete their annual income and tax declaration?”. The financial expert drafted a step-by-step guide (with relevant ‘tips and tricks’) and we then organised two ‘training’ sessions of around 50 people to introduce the guide, get feedback, and valorise the applicability and perceived usefulness of the guide. Around four months later in March 2019, 80 of the 100 farmers participating in the LL submitted their annual fiscal declarations on-time! This was very important for the cooperative to continue its existing contract with a major multiple retailer (Carrefour), which will ultimately lead to increased incomes, better livelihoods, and generally higher levels of professionalism. This simple – but effective – approach has attracted interested from neighbouring villages and other cooperatives (via the CoopNET network) in Romania. The challenge now is to transfer this approach to another sector (e.g. livestock production) with another business model.

Living lab process appears to be a suitable tool in supporting innovations´ adoption within groups of part-time farmers. An experience developed in the last decade in the region Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy) offers an example applied to commons management and the creation of a local food supply chain of flour and bread.

“Classical” advisory services fail in similar cases due to the diversity of topics and the inclusion of the social dimension. The living lab approach offers the possibility to facilitate the involvement of multiple actors with different knowledge and needs and to grant continuity to the supports of farmers, especially in the first years, when they feel more unsecure.

In the case under study, the innovation is adopted predominantly by non-professional farmers. Although they do not significantly benefit from it financially, they adopt the innovation because of its value in matter of social innovation and environmental sustainability.

The difficulty encountered relate mainly to the adoption of co-design and interactive tools, due to farmers’ age and educational background.

The integration of part-time farmers in the management of common lands and in the creation of local food supply chains offered the chance to start innovative processes, which still need to fine tune their economic sustainability (and therefore become more attractive for professional farmers), but are already changing the approach of the community to local and sustainable food.

Information on the Agrilink case study: https://www.agrilink2020.eu/living-labs/rebuilding-a-local-food-communi…

Information on the initiative: https://www.des-mediofriuli.it/

Many EU projects are using multi-actor approaches, such as living labs, to develop solutions to identified problems. On the basis of the experiences in the 6 Agrilink living labs we identified four main conditions to consider when starting a living lab. For each of these conditions we formulated assessment questions that signal important points of attention when establishing a living lab. Condition 1: Complexity of the challenge. Assessment questions: Do stakeholders agree on the direction of change? Do stakeholders agree on the possible solutions to the challenge? To what degree is the theme of the lab in alignment with the private interest of the end user? Condition 2: Enabling setting. Assessment questions: Is there room for experimentation and flexibility in the outcome of the process? Can you mobilise enough resources for the process? Are the consequences of failure acceptable? Are stakeholders used to discuss and participate? Condition 3: Energy to move. Assessment questions: Do the stakeholders experience a sense of urgency to change? Do they have the capacity to engage in the living lab? Do they trust each other and recognize their interdependence in solving the challenge? Condition 4: Methodological preparation. Assessment questions: Does the facilitator combine leadership and mandate with a curious and flexible attitude? Is the living lab taking place in the influence sphere of the facilitator? Is the facilitator experienced to select appropriate tools in unexpected situations? If many of the answers to these assessment questions are negative, it will be more challenging to establish a living lab. Agrilink is developing pedagogical material to assist facilitators in assessing the situation and in dealing with the challenges.

It is more challenging to engage farmers, advisors, and contractors in projects that focus on reducing the environmental impact of agriculture than those that focus on improving productivity. The public-private partnership project Grondig Boeren met Mais, which focuses on making maize cultivation in the south-east of the Netherlands more sustainable, has attracted the attention of farmers and agricultural intermediairies. As part of the Agrilink living lab, the experiences in Grondig boeren met Mais were analyzed and the success factors identified. Below are some recommendations and lessons learned for working with stakeholders to make agriculture more sustainable. 1. Combine demonstrations on a pilot farm with demonstrations at farms in practice. This way, the farmer can imagine what it will look like on his own farm. 2. Spread the field demonstrations across the region. This way you bring it closer to the farmer's world of experience and he can ask questions and hear experiences from nearby neighbours. 3. Provide a dedicated project team with standards and values ​​that are consistent with practice. 4. Organize your project as a platform and stimulate interaction between research institutions and local stakeholders. 5. Let stakeholders participate in the decision-making about the project activities and the research agenda. 6. Give sufficient attention to communication and involving stakeholders and sharing insights. These recommendations can help to strengthen the cooperation between researchers, advisory service providers, and practitioners in making agriculture more sustainable.

In the Agrilink Living Lab in the Netherlands / Belgium, stakeholders jointly discussed how maize cultivation can be made more sustainable. Contractors, consultants, and researchers wanted to develop a decision tree for catch crops in maize. This advisory tool should support farmers in optimally using the catch crop to support soil management in maize and to comply with the new regulations. Besides the different catch crops, the options are to sow the catch crop simultaneously with the maize or after the maize harvest. In facilitating several meetings to develop a decision tree, it became clear that the stakeholders were not interested in working together to develop the advice-tool. For advisors and contractors providing advice on maize cultivation is an additional service to the farmer. These advisors primarily want to sustain their client relationship with the farmers. Thus it has their preference to offer an advisory product themselves. In addition, each advice provider has his own interest in the content of the advice. For example, advisors will avoid risks and lean more towards advising simultaneous sowing, so that the client will not have any problems with the new regulations. Contractors benefit from spreading the workload and will therefore not be inclined to advise after-sowing the catch crop, even though this is sometimes better from an agronomic perspective. The interests of advising parties thus influence the form but also the content of the advice. Interestingly, in Belgium, the stakeholders did manage to integrate the individual interests in the development of the decision tree. Because here the decision tree was a deliverable in a joint project, it was a common interest of all stakeholders and competition amongst them was overcome.

Part of the Dutch-Belgian living lab was to find out if the new advisory services – like the catch crop decision tree – developed in the Netherlands would be relevant in the Belgian context. In total, there were six exchanges with Flemish stakeholders. The most important learnings were:

-The legislation on both sides of the border is the same and the various advisory products developed in the Netherlands already exist in Flanders, but the implementation differs;

- The AgriLink project has generated a great deal of interest on both sides of the border among the various stakeholders for the exchange of knowledge and to know each other better. Cross-border visits between individual stakeholders have been planned, but may be affected by the pandemic;

- In general, cross-border exchange is complicated by the lack of small-scale Flemish-Dutch projects to tackle matters like prevention of nitrate leaching;

- Cross-border collaboration calls for choices to be made regarding definition and measuring: Taking for example the amount of carbon in the soil, in the Netherlands they measure in organic matter, while in Flanders they measure in organic carbon (there is a difference of 50%);

- Comparing how the decision tree was developed in the Netherlands versus Flanders has contributed to learning about living labs and co-creation.

Co-creation is one of the 5 characteristics of a living lab. Ideally stakeholders work together for a common goal, but the reality is that different stakeholders have different interests. In the Netherlands, this resulted in three decision trees. In Flanders, all stakeholders could express their wishes, but a small team, including a neutral expert, made the final decisions. The result is one decision tree with general consensus.

In Latvia, as in other EU member states, interaction between farmers, small food businesses and agricultural advisors frequently takes place in person. Furthermore, some farmers are used to consulting with their local advisors, with whom they have established a strong personal relationship over many years of professional collaboration. Attempts to integrate digital or online tools into such established patterns of interaction and knowledge exchange may face hurdles. The aim of the Latvian living lab in the AgriLink project is to create an online platform that will aggregate all the publicly available online resources regarding horticultural processing and assist farmers in their attempts to quickly find the appropriate information. While this can seem like a (simple) technological solution that could benefit its potential users, the platform approaches the relationship between advisor and farmer in a less personal manner than farmers are used to. This, along with a lack of proficiency with digital tools, may deter some farmers and businesses from making use of the platform and, consequently, limit the tool from making a positive contribution. The living lab, therefore, has actively involved advisors in the creation process to ensure that the tool is fit for purpose (e.g. the information is structured intuitively). This experience suggests that an appreciation of the way farmers generally engage the advisory system in the country in question can contribute to developing a solution that builds upon the strengths of online systems whilst circumventing the need to introduce disruptions with unclear consequences for the advisor-farmer relationship.

Europe wants farmers to innovate faster to make agriculture more sustainable. Within the AgriLink project, we examine whether the “Living lab” method is relevant to innovate faster. Described in plain language, in a living lab the researcher, the farmer and a number of other stakeholders actively work out together a solution to a real problem of the farmer through various exercises. But what aspects influence the farmer's decision to participate in a living lab, for example, the Dutch-Belgian living lab on catch crops to reduce nitrate leaching?

1. The farmer must be convinced that there is a problem and have an interest in solving it. Legislation on nitrate leaching is not a motivator to take a proactive approach.

2. The farmer must be confident that a feasible solution exists. Is the solution that the farmers see also accepted by goverment and society? Is a win-win situation possible or is it better to leave the problem untouched (wait and see)?

3. Terms such as living lab and co-creation are words that are hip today in the context of research. They sound vague and insignificant in daily consultation with farmers. One farmer put it this way: "Co-creation works like a red cloth on a bull for me." So, careful with this jargon!

4. Working with nature is working with insecurity and requires quick switching. The focus is on short-term solutions, it turns out to be more difficult to free up time and devise long-term solutions.

5. Experience shows that farmers, as most people, become more vocal in one-on-one conversations and more willing to express their thoughts and ideas than in a group. Peer pressure can lead to silences or to joining the loudest person. The best ideas are often vented after the meeting!

Peer to peer (P2P) mentoring is a form of dialogue between a person who has a certain professional question and peers who are willing to listen and assist in deepening the question and sharing their expertise to explore solutions.

In Agrilink P2P Mentoring has been used during collective sessions of facilitators of the 6 Living Labs. One person brings a dilemma related to the development or situation in the Living Lab. Peers of other Labs listen and assist in the reflection on thinking and acting, resulting in better insights on the topic and ideas for new interventions. Examples of questions raised during these P2P-sessions were: How to motivate farmers to share data? How to stimulate a certain stakeholder group after the informal leader of the Lab stood down?

The P2P Mentoring sessions in Agrilink were done in 30 minutes in small groups of 4-6 persons. The five steps and timings set out below were followed to create an effective process:

1) Introduction of the dilemma by the problem owner (5 minutes);

2) Exploration of the dilemma by open questions by peers: why, how, when. This is about fact finding. In this stage the peers postpone to voice their own ideas and do not give advice (10 minutes);

3) Possible reformulation of the dilemma and write reformulated dilemma on paper;

4) Peers analyse the central problem. Each formulates one advice (what would I do in this situation) (5 minutes);

5) The problem owner evaluates the results: is there an improved insight into the problem and a usefull advice?

Facilitators working with a variety of (farmer) groups and innovation partnerships are able to share their expertise effectively with P2P mentoring. Short sessions result in much better understanding of the problem and refreshing solutions.

An increasing number of innovative fruit and vegetable growers from Romania’s capital region (Ilfov, Giurgiu and Prahova) have developed an online sales presence in the form of either a web shop placed on their website (BioDumbrava, EcoKult, Prepelitu, Ograda lui Luca) or a Facebook page through which the producers take orders from consumers (BioSalati din Gradina Ursului). These pioneering entrepreneurs (often highly educated and coming from corporate backgrounds) have turned to farming as a side-activity or a lifestyle, thereby bringing new knowledge to the field of agricultural marketing. They have used their knowledge and urban networks of marketing experts to improve packaging, social media and website Search Engine Optimization (SEO) algorithms to reach specific urban niche markets (i.e. organic produce, rare plant varieties, gourmet recipes, wild varieties, speciality honey and lavender). For example, in 2017 a new App (Taraba Virtuala) appeared for Bucharest consumers who want to order fresh produce from smaller producers around the city. This offered a convenient interface for around 100 different producers to manage the 20 weekly orders from around 1000 active consumers. Taraba Virtuala considers its platform to be self-explanatory, and does not offer any additional farmer advisory services to the producers it works in partnership with. For more information about these case studies please visit https://www.agrilink2020.eu/ However, there is huge potential to develop public / private advisory services about innovative direct marketing channels, including accessible programmes / services for training farmers in branding, packaging, product differentiation and storytelling skills, as well as the use of social media.

Following the introduction (in 2009) and subsequent amendment (in 2016) of national legislation to promote the consumption of Romanian fresh produce, several of the major supermarkets (Carrefour, Kaufland, Mega Image, Metro Cash and Carry) operating in Romania have developed cooperative schemes for integrating small-scale producers into their local / regional supply chains. Supermarkets sell the produce under the branding of the cooperative providing farmers with a fixed price and stable income. Each of these supermarket-driven cooperative schemes have their own structure and particularities. Differences between the schemes are particularly related to a) the type of farm advisory support provided by the supermarkets (seeds, varieties, packaging advice, support from agronomists and certification advice) and b) the level of control and type of involvement that the supermarkets have in the cooperative structures (co-ownership of the cooperative, imposing exclusive production kits or simply running occasional soil samples to monitor adherence to standards). For more information about these arrangements, please visit https://www.agrilink2020.eu/. These supermarket-driven cooperative schemes play an essential role in providing a stable direct channel to the market for an increasing number of small farmers, however there are concerns about the imbalanced power relationship between the cooperatives and the farmers. For this reason, farm advisory systems should focus on encouraging new cooperative arrangements, involving new forms of partnership and novel (for Romania) trading arrangements that involve more balanced bargaining power and a greater variety of services provided to the participating farmers.

The difficulty of using low powered, mechanical hay-making equipment (e.g. walk-behind motor scythes) on the steeply sloping mountain grasslands of southern Transylvania has led to small-scale subsistence farmers in the region developing their own ‘farm hacks’ to adapt their (often ageing) motorised hay-making equipment to the local landscape. The disappearance of many Romanian farm machinery manufacturers after the fall of the communist regime has also led to the development of informal networks of small farmers who collaborate to repair and adapt ‘new’ machinery spare parts from the international equipment manufacturers now established on the Romanian market to their older equipment. Small farmers come together mainly through extended networks of neighbouring farmers, family and friends. These social networks use technical information and sketches found on the internet (including YouTube videos) to develop budget technical solutions for their specific needs / context. Farm advisory systems could further support such forms of grassroots knowledge exchange and co-creation by creating specific networking events to bring together farmers with different technical skills; by facilitating peer-to-peer support for farmers facing specific challenges, and/or; by encouraging community experts to hold courses, workshops and create YouTube videos in their own language on various technical issues, including machinery repairs. Inspiring examples from other countries include the international Farm Hack network for sharing know-how amongst DIY agricultural tech innovators (www.farmhack.org/tools) and the French small-scale farmers collective known as L’Atelier Paysans (www.latelierpaysan.org).

The outsourcing of certain farm operations to contractors, such as harvesting, is an old practice in France. What is new is the rapid growth of agricultural outsourcing since the 2000s, and the emergence of new outsourcing practices and organisations. Surveys in southwest France show a great diversity of situations. Farm outsourcing today concerns all farms and not just the smallest ones. It also concerns all agricultural operations, even those that constitute the core business of farming, such as sowing or the strategic management of the farm. Interviewed farmers express many reasons for outsourcing: lack of investment capacity, testing of new specialised precision farming equipment, access to new farming skills and knowledge, externalising of operations hazardous for occupational health, externalising the costs associated with hiring farmworkers, willingness to keep the farm when retiring without an heir. The decision to outsource is generally taken fairly quickly following an event (illness, retirement or departure of a worker, need to change an equipment, etc.). It results from a cost/benefit calculation that arbitrates between, on the one hand, doing oneself and acquiring a new equipment and skills or hiring a farm worker and, on the other hand, outsourcing to contractors. To do this, farmers use a wide variety of advisory sources who provide them with standard information such as equipment and labor costs, outsourcing costs, or the availability and quality of contractors. New sources of advice are put in place around both traditional advisory providers who are developing outsourcing services (e.g. cooperatives), and new actors, such as business consulting firms, temporary employment services and farm contractors.

As part of the AgriLink project, in a selected Radom region, central Poland, a survey was conducted on the impact and role of agricultural advisory support on farmers' activities in implementing innovative solutions on their farm. One of the topics undertaken was the development of renewable energy in rural areas. The use of these technologies in agriculture enables independent energy production and limits its purchase from outside, which brings measurable financial and ecological benefits.

Public agricultural advisors (www.cdr.gov.pl/informacje-branzowe/osrodki-doradztwa-rolniczego) are widely involved in the development of renewable energy in rural areas. They provide direct advice to farmers regarding specific renewable technologies, including trainings on the development of those technologies, selection of technologies for a given farm profile, profitability and sources of investment support. Under the RDP 2013-2020, they provide advisory services: renewable energy sources, including advisory assistance to farmers in prosumer activities.

Agricultural advisory units develop and publish numerous brochures, training materials and press articles to familiarise renewable energy issues. Advisors organise many conferences and trainings. Foreign and domestic study trips on renewable energy, in which advisors, scientists, entrepreneurs and farmers take part, are very popular. Many advisors act as renewable energy innovation brokers, cooperating with local farmers, organising thematic groups in this area.

In most regional agricultural advisory units in Poland there are teams / persons responsible for activities related to renewable energy in agricultural areas, and they operate on similar principles.

In Flanders, an environmental technology is introduced to the market for reducing the energy consumption on a farm, called a Pocket digester. The decision-making of a farmer for acquiring this technique had been studied in the H2020-project Agrilink. Farmers often read about the existence of the pocket digester in technical magazines or on websites from advisory organisations such as farmer-based cooperatives (e.g. Boerenbond). Besides those, individual contact with other farmers who had already implemented the innovation is another major source of information. Farmers would often go and visit the farms of colleagues who had recently installed their pocket digester. Furthermore, farmers also visit agricultural fairs to find out the latest innovations in agriculture. The pocket digester has won an innovation prize at the Agribex fair in 2011, sparking its publicity. At these fairs, farmers could also meet representatives from the installing firm who were final important actors during the awareness stage. During the assessment stage, farmers would talk to representatives from the installation firm and talk to peer farmers who had already installed a pocket digester. They also seek information from farmer organisations (e.g. Innovatiesteunpunt), where they could meet up with advisors individually or attend workshops. These instances also provided additional services such as feasibility studies. The main (and often the only) supporting actors during the implementation stage clearly were representatives from the installation firm. So the role of independent advisory service in this case is small. However, farmers clearly stated that independent advise is needed to get an unbiased answer to their questions.

Within the Agrilink project the role of advisory services in support of innovation was investigated for different innovation types, in order to identify effective ways for providing advice to farmers. Innovations for environmental sustainability are particularly challenging to be spread, as they are not necessarily ensuring high profitability for the farmers. This type of innovation does not always provide immediate benefits for the adopters. Three case studies implemented in Italy, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic were focused on the introduction of soil management practices for different crops aimed at improving soil quality, such as non-inverse tillage and use of cover crops. These practices allow the reduction of soil compaction and erosion, better water management, increase of soil organic matter. The introduction of these techniques on farms in the three countries was not driven by business actors or advisors linked to input providers. In Italy as well as in the Netherlands, regardless of the historically different advisory landscapes, it came out that for many adopters the decision to implement or even to try out the innovation was related mostly to the practical experience and sensibility to environmental issues as demonstrated first by a peer farmer, followed by advice from a “professional” private advisor. Even in the Czech Republic, where the uptake of the innovation was mainly supported by governmental measures forcing farmers to fulfil GAEC 5 (the requirement for soil protection), the important role of informal networks was observed. Peer-to-peer approach on farmers’ level therefore seems promising in enhancing innovation for sustainable agriculture. More info: https://www.agrilink2020.eu/

PROVE (www.prove.pt) is a programme launched in 2006 by a Local Action Group (LAG) nearby the Lisbon conurbation to enable farmers to self-manage collaborative arrangements for selling farm products directly to urban consumers. Development and self-management of short food supply chains help small farmers attaining socioeconomic sustainability. LAG’s successful example was replicated in other Portuguese regions. In the Tâmega-e-Sousa region, in the North-western Portugal, 50 to 75 km away from Porto, with the support of regions’ LAGs, a number of farmer PROVE groups were launched between 2008 and 2012. Groups of 4 to 5 farmers weekly filled boxes with seasonal vegetables and fruits from their farms, and directly delivered them to Porto consumers in pre-defined spots. Challenges to the groups’ cohesion rapidly emerged, including the lack of a group-owned van, forcing the farmers that owned vans to provide the means of transportation, thus creating uneven work division and dissatisfaction. The limited diversity of seasonal farm products also raised dissatisfaction among consumers. This illustrates how, regarding social innovation, short-supply chains lack advisory support and how small-scale farmers that are relatively distant from large urban areas might not be able to sustain self-managed direct marketing initiatives due to excessive burden on farmers. Institutional arrangements, such as bottom-up cooperatives or similar organisational figures, bringing together farmers and consumers, could be an option. Incentives to formalised collaborative initiatives involving marketing and organisation innovation could make a difference in the success of short supply food chains by addressing identified challenges.

Smart irrigation is spreading across Northern Lezíria do Tejo, converting it into Portuguese leading region regarding irrigation eco-efficiency and farmers’ engagement in digitalisation. AGROMAIS (http://agromais.pt) pioneered the introduction of soil moisture probes in the region in 1998. Founded in 1987, this cooperative launched a private, farmer-owned advisory company, AGROMAIS PLUS, in 1998, that encompasses both front- and back-office advisory activities. Its success in disseminating smart irrigation in the region lies on its covering the entire chain of the advisory process. Front-office activities comprise the supply of one-to-one advice to farmers together with selling inputs and /or irrigation equipment. Closeness to farmers and supply of high-quality advisory services earned them farmers’ trust and willingness to testing and experimenting activities when challenged. Therefore, FBO successfully launched trial campaigns offering free or reduced fee rental of probes, enabling farmers to test the technology without risks and free-of-charge or at reduced costs. AGROMAIS is currently developing training actions directed at adopters with autonomy difficulties, aiming at overcoming digitalisation aversion. Back-office activities, underpinning high quality front-office advice, include highly qualified advisors and a long-term pro-active interaction with the hi-tech companies developing the software and apps to the probes. By working together with the hi-tech companies, it is possible to co-develop solutions best-fitted to local agroecological conditions and farmers’ limited digital skills.

Ribatejo agrarian flatlands lie between Central and Southern Portugal, and are split into two regions by River Tagus: Northern and Southern Lezíria do Tejo. Irrigated crops, mainly corn and vegetables, prevail in the former, through the use of groundwater extracted from wells feeding irrigation pumping systems, and currently using electricity as an energy source. Common irrigation systems are sprinklers and central pivots, although drip irrigation is increasing as production of vegetables increases. Unsurprisingly, farmers face mounting pressures to save water and cut energy costs. Soil moisture probes are a smart technology which has proven useful in enhancing water use eco-efficiency in the region. Probes are installed in the soil and monitor such parameters as humidity, temperature and salinity at different soil depths in real-time. They communicate the collected data to a software developed in an app format that stores, manages and integrates information from other devices, comprising in-field meteorological stations. Smart humidity sensors give farmers indications as to when plots should be irrigated and how much water is needed to do it in an eco-efficient manner. The app is installed in farmer’s mobile phones or other electronic devices. Adopters of such technology are happy with probes for perceived benefits in business competitiveness due to energy cost savings and increased clients’ satisfaction, besides work effort reduction which results from diminishing the need for manual monitoring of in-field irrigation. And, although perceived rises in productivity are not significant to the majority, positive effects on the product quality are acknowledged, particularly regarding vegetables.

Winegrowers’ strategies to enhance ecological infrastructures (Els) consist of agroecological farm practices combining vineyards and slopes green cover with recovery of traditional features of the landscape like hedgerows and schist walls. Although farm-unique and time-evolving, these strategies can be replicated in other wine regions across Europe and worldwide by exploiting the agroecological specificities and agrarian structure of each place. A successful replication relies on a locally-based KIS (Knowledge and Innovation System) deeply networked with applied research. EIs are a knowledge-intensive innovation entailing cognitively demanding activities, such as in-field testing, experimenting, monitoring and registering, and the farmer’s engagement in informal peer-to-peer learning intensive routines. It must be based on a strong interaction with R&D players, as observed in the Douro KIS-based enhancement of ecological infrastructures. A key player is a farmer-based advisory organisation (ADVID) defined by a strong back-office, comprising intense networking with research institutions and worldwide experts, and enabled by highly qualified advisors, including PhDs, who can directly engage in research activities and co-create applied scientific knowledge with researchers and winegrowers. This tripartite partnership is crucial to disseminate EIs, despite limitations, such as the scarcity of public funding to applied research and demonstration activities. Making available funding to continuously develop these activities would enhance agro-ecological transitions at the regional landscape level by bringing farmers on board and enlarging peer-to-peer learning networks.

The upper Douro valley is a region whose landscape has been intensely shaped by vine growing and wine making activities for the last 300 years. The vineyards are grown in steep hillsides where in the past handmade schist walls were erected to support the vines. Despite the landscape reshaping over time it kept its singular character and in 2001 it was awarded the World Heritage label assigned by UNESCO. The landscape’s singularity is enriched by a dynamic winegrowing activity, producing worldwide known DOC (Designated Controlled Origin) wines. More recently, in the late 1990s, pioneer grapevine growers implemented strategies to enhance the vineyards’ eco-functionality. These strategies consist of a set of agro-ecological farm practices combining vineyards green cover, including the growing of grassy vegetation in the slopes of land terraces, with the recovering and enhancing of live hedgerows, schist walls, and Mediterranean bushes. Enhancing ecological infrastructures (EIs) is a way of obtaining an array of ecosystems services with both private and collective benefits. Grapevine growers benefit from biologic pest control and soil protection services, by strengthening the resilience of their vineyards, threatened by climate change and insidious pests and diseases. The EIs reinforce the region winemaking competiveness through the capture of marketing benefits related to the aesthetical quality of the landscape and the grapevine grower’s contribution to safeguarding the world cultural heritage. In addition, there has been increasing evidence of a liaison between agroecological practices in the vineyards and the wines’ oenological quality.

Access to independent and affordable advisory systems for small diversified organic farms in the Friuli Venezia Giulia region (Italy) is very limited. One of the few organisations that has tried to close this gap is the regional branch of AIAB (Italian Association for Organic Agriculture); it has done so by developing a network aimed to offer continuous support to farmers, based on peer-to-peer support (see AgriLink PA3). AIAB established a system for collective direct marketing of local organic products to help farms build a solid customer base and at the same time create a community where actors are co-responsible for the sustainability of the local food systems. This social innovation was a pioneering work that drew knowledge and resources from farmers and other members of the organisation, but relied also on non-agricultural actors on topics such as legal and fiscal management. The system, which involves 45 farmers, relies on an online platform for gathering orders, and on four locations for product distribution. The system aims at facilitating farmers’ access to market, but it also has a strong positive side effect: it contributes to strengthening the network of farmers and consequently to amplifying the effects of the peer-to-peer support system. This highlights the importance of social innovations in supporting peer networks, especially in instances when an independent advisory system is lacking. More info at https://www.aiab.fvg.it/godo

The trend of new governance of farm advice models that tend to be more fragmented, pluralistic and decentralised is not really observed in Flanders, Belgium. In the H2020 project Agrilink the decision-making of around 100 farmers was studied. Almost all farmers regularly met up with advisors from the farmer organisations, checked their website, read their magazines, or attended workshops that they organised. Also independent advisors from private companies were important actors in most of the farmers’ AKIS as well. They would pay visits to the farms to discuss their products or services with farmers one-to-one. The third and final important actor of the farmers’ AKIS were neighbour farmers. All farmers had a network of other farmers that they would often contact to follow up on their activities, and ask for support when needed. Since Flanders is so small, there are no regions that are too hard to reach and hence face difficulties to access advice. The advisors from private companies change at the rate at which new private companies that support farmers join the market. However, the other important supporting actors such as Boerenbond have been part of the advisory landscape in Flanders for a very long time, and it appears that this will not dramatically change in the coming years.

The H2020 project Agrilink studied the AKIS (Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems) of around 100 farmers in Flanders, Belgium. The AKIS of most farmers was quite similar, also it is not really possible to relate differences in farm characteristics to differences in the role of advice in decision-making based on this survey. One difference that did stand out, however, was the regional presence of Inagro (a local advisory department of the Ministry of Agriculture) in West-Flanders. Almost all farmers from this region were advised by this organisation about a variety of topics and the farmers were generally very pleased with their support. Yet despite this small regional difference, most farmers would seek advice from similar advisory actors about the same topics, regardless whether they were old or young or whether their farms were large or small. We don’t see new business models of advisory services. The classical method of one-to-one advice in person still was the most popular form of advice provision and the awareness was often triggered by reading magazines or visiting fairs. Hence although farmers do use the internet a lot for inquiries, the older methods remain very prominently present as well. However, the fact that some of the farmers who had installed a technical solution on their farms organised themselves in a group on Facebook (https://bit.ly/3aNHG6T). This small example of digitization in agriculture was helpful for sharing knowledge between farmers fast, and jointly discussing problems and opportunities. The emergence of such groups enables farmers to gain easy and free access to highly relevant information.

In the AgriLink project implementation of electronic bells (e-bell) on sheep in the county of Sogn og Fjordane in Norway was studied. E-bells are placed around the neck of the sheep for use when they are grazing in the outfields. The bell uses GPS or the mobile phone network and makes it easier to locate and control animals, thus reducing stock losses. The County Governor introduced subsidies for the purchase of e-bells in 2010 as part of a project to reduce the loss of sheep through predation. The condition was that groups of farmers sharing common outfield pastures needed to apply for support on behalf of their members. These groups have traditionally cooperated in gathering the sheep at the end of the season.

Most sheep farmers became aware of the new technology and the County Governor’s project in meetings arranged by the meat cooperative and the farmers’ interest organisation for sheep and goats. In the assessment and implementation phase, sheep farmers with knowledge in the use of the bells supported other farmers and usually provided the contact between the suppliers and the pasture group.

The responsibility of the pasture group for the application combined with the peer-to-peer advising lead to a widespread diffusion of the new technology. Implementation has further led to stronger cooperation, increased contact between members of some pasture groups, and enhanced knowledge about where the animals move during a season. Overall, it has led to a greater commitment to the use of common land in the outfields. The study also showed that the public and farmers can initiate and diffuse technology innovations effectively by working together. See: www.landbruksdirektoratet.no/no/dokumenter/publikasjoner/sluttrapport-n…

The Agrilink project examined three innovation cases related with the introduction of new crops: chickpeas in France and stevia and avocado in Greece. Though all cases were market driven, different triggers of farmers’ awareness, and the advisory landscape around them, reveal aspects of farmers’ mentality and dependency paths.

Traders, following consumers’ demand for healthy nutrition, were key-actors in chickpeas since they raised farmers’ awareness by offering contracts and secure access to the market. They offered farmers advice and enabled them to assess and implement the innovation and evaluate its profitability. Thus, traders guided the growers at all stages of the production circle, realising their antagonistic economic models and marking growers’ dependency from them. Non-adopters were farmers not reached by the traders.

On the other hand, in Greece researchers and academics and, at a later stage, peers triggered farmers’ awareness, who had already been seeking for alternative crops. These actors helped farmers assess the innovations as well; however, at the implementation stage growers were left alone amidst a fragmented advisory landscape to deal with agronomic and environmental challenges. Growers were standing on their own on marketing issues, while processing and marketability difficulties halted the cultivation of stevia. Non-adopters were farmers with no suitable land or farmers who wished for a more secure path through-out the innovation process.

In both countries the engaged farmers valued professional advice but the advisory activity did not improve essentially the sustainability of farming systems, indicating that changes on the advisory regimes are needed (https://www.agrilink2020.eu/).

Three innovations from Greece that were examined in the framework of the AgriLink project, concerning the mating disruption of insects and the new crops of avocado and stevia, show the central role of peer farmers in information and knowledge dissemination throughout the innovation processes. Exchanges among peer-farmers are integrated in everyday life and often cannot be separated from their social life. Moving beyond learning from everyday interactions, the stevia growers were locally self-organised, carrying out experiments on cultivation practices and sharing experiences on a regular/systematic basis.

Nevertheless, farmers understand that the knowledge gained from peers’ exchanges is not always valid. Lacking a public-funded advisory system, they rely on private input suppliers for professional advice, though they recognise that suppliers are not sufficiently reliable advice providers. Many farmers realise that critical thinking skills govern their ability to innovate, and that the lack of sufficient public educational structures and impartial advisory services of quality does not allow for optimism.

On their part, advice suppliers recognise the need for valid and easily accessible knowledge for both farmers and themselves and the need for tools, such as digital knowledge platforms to support their role. The study points out the weak links among AKIS actors, making the successful adoption of innovations harder and undermining the farming sector potentials. This makes some actors put expectations on the implementation of the Farm Advisory Systems under the EU policy for setting procedures that will help the emergence of qualified advisors able to boost innovations in rural areas (https://www.agrilink2020.eu).

The Agrilink project investigated the adoption of non-inverse tillage as a measure for soil improvement in the Netherlands. In non-inverse tillage the soil is not tilled therefore the soil-life is able to develop itself without being interrupted or destroyed. This would create a better soil structure which would result in a more robust soil. In the Netherlands there are only a few farmers applying non-inverse tillage just to improve their soil structure and soil-life. The adopting farmers heard about the practice in a presentation or news-article by one specific advisor, who introduced the practice from Belgium. In addition to the information from this advisor, observing the experiences from other farmers helped raise the interest in non-inverse-tillage and the decision to adopt the practice. Study groups facilitated this exchange by allowing farmers to see how other farmers apply non-inverse tillage. It is remarkable that this innovation started with only one advisor. Together with some pioneers he has played a key role in the adoption of this innovation. Later two other advisors started advising on the practice in other parts of the country. Almost all farmers in the Netherlands that apply non-inverse tillage were supported by one of these three advisors. Many of the non-adopting farmers argue that they see many potential negative influences and haven't seen a positive example yet. The experiences of fellow farmers can support or hinder the adoption depending how they evaluate the practice. To inspire and support more farmers to apply the innovation it would be good to support the development of non-inverse tillage expertise among more advisors and share the positive experiences among farmers.

The Agrilink project investigated the implementation of the cultivation of tagetes as a biological agent for soil disinfection in the Netherlands. Infestation of soils with the nematode Pratylenchus Penetrans is a severe threat to the production of fruit, strawberries, potatoes, roses and lily. The cultivation of tagetes can, in contrast to harmfull pesticides, control this nematode specie in a biological manner. The tagetes crop reduces the nematode population strongly, thus reducing the damage to the subsequent crops. Research and farm advice organisations worked already in the 1990s together to investigate the effects and effectively disseminate the innovation of tagetes cultivation among farmers. Stricter policies on pesticide use for chemical soil disinfestation increased the interest in tagetes cultivation and is therefore marked as the trigger event of the innovation. The sectors that experienced the most problems with both the nematode and chemical soil disinfestation (tree nursery and strawberries) were the first ones to adopt the innovation. Currently in all sectors most farmers have implemented the innovation and cultivate tagetes whenever the nematode populations in the soil become too big. The innovation process can be seen as successfull. A good and close relationship between farmer and farm advisor is essential in order to assess tagetes and help farmers overcome difficulties during implementation. The advisor, combined with researchers who were spreading the results from expiriments, were therefore very important in all phases of the innovation process. Study groups organised by farmers also contributed to the dissimination of information and lead in this way to the uptake of the innovation.

The aim of the AgriLink project was to explore which actors provide farmers with advice at different stages of the technology implementation process. A case study focusing on the uptake of milking robots was carried out in the county of Trøndelag in Norway where the density of milking robots is high.

The first farmers to install milking robots in the early 2000s did not receive any support from the traditional advisory services that, at the time, were very skeptical of the technology. The suppliers provided some advice in the implementation phase but pioneers had to handle many situations on their own.

Dairy farmers today are well aware of milking robots. In the assessment phase, farmers perceive advisors from the milk cooperative and the input suppliers to provide the most valuable advice. However, many other actors also contribute advice in this phase, for example, other agricultural cooperatives and financial institutions. In the implementation phase, the main advisors are milking robot provider personnel and specialist advisors from the dairy cooperative.

The study indicated that traditional advisors have become important for the later adopters. The fact that they have managed to take a central role in the assessment and implementation phase seems to result from a desire to receive more “neutral” advice than that provided by technology providers. Traditional advisory services also provide a more holistic picture of the situation and this is important for a decision as significant as the purchase of a milking robot. The study showed that the traditional advisors were not the driving force behind the initial uptake of this technological innovation, but they have played an important role in diffusion in the later phases of the development.

Protecting ecosystems is an important and challenging task, especially in rural areas. Negative environmental changes, caused by human activity, threaten the stability of ecosystems and the disappearance of species and precious natural habitats.

The Siedleckie, central Poland (as part of a case study within the AgriLink project) is a region characterised by high natural potential on the national scale and a high concentration of Natura 2000 areas, where activities are carried out in the field of preservation of certain types of valuable natural habitats and species. Simultaneously, Siedleckie is part of the regions in Poland characterised by a significant role of the agricultural sector.

Farmer’s attitude towards innovation and change:

All the respondent farmers stated that advisors from the public sector cooperating with farmers at the regional level play a significant role in advising on innovation. The vast majority of the farmer-advisor interaction takes place in the form of 'one-to-one', training sessions, workshops, and seminars.

Another important advice provider are neighbour farmers or peers, with whom farmers come into close interaction (one-to-one, single advice in person) with high frequency.

Cooperation and regular (one-to-one or collective) meetings help to streamline farmers' decision-making regarding the introduction of innovation on their own farm. The role of agriculturala advisory services in the region is significant. Public advisors are main advice providers for most of the farmers in the region, which is due to the long history of public consultancy in the region, trust in farmer-advisor relations, and the high competencies demonstrated by advisors in the subject of innovation.

The requirements introduced in agriculture, which are conditions that protect the natural environment, human and animal health, concern the use of sustainable fertilisation and integrated pest management, can be responded by adopting precise fertilisation and chemical protection practices, what is generally known by precision farming.

In the selected focus regions of Wielkopolski and Wrocławski, southwestern Poland (as part of a case study within the AgriLink project) are characterised by large-scale farms established on the former state-owned farms, which, due to the intensification of production and the need to reduce costs, introduce simplified technologies in the cultivation of plants.

Farmer’s attitude towards innovation and change:

Interviewed farmers stated that advisors from the public sector cooperating with farmers at the regional level play a significant role in advising on innovation. The vast majority of the farmer-advisor interaction takes place in the form of 'one-to-one', training sessions, workshops, and seminars.

Another significant key advice provider in the case precision farming are the input and machinery private suppliers. The neighbour farmer or peer-to-peer interaction emerges as an equally relevant source of advice in this case study.

Cooperation and regular meetings help to streamline farmers' decision-making regarding the introduction of innovation on their own farm. The role of advisory services in the region is significant. Public advisors are main advice providers for most of the farmers in the region, which is due to the long history of public consultancy in the region, trust in farmer-advisor relations, and the high competencies demonstrated by advisors in the subject of innovation.

Sustainable development targets include the use of distributed, low-power energy sources that produce local energy and supply it directly to households. These criteria are best met by renewable energy sources such as biomass boilers, microbiogas plants, small wind turbines, small hydropower plants, solar collectors, photovoltaic cells. The use of these technologies in agriculture enables the independent production of energy and reduces its purchase from the outside, which brings measurable financial and ecological benefits.

The selected focus region - Radomski, central Poland (as part of a case study within the AgriLink project) is characterised by a gradual increase in the cultivated area of oilseeds and plants used for biofuels and for energy purposes.

Farmer’s attitude towards innovation and change:

All respondent farmers stated that public sector advisors cooperating with farmers at the regional level play a significant role in advising on innovation. The vast majority of the farmer-advisor interaction takes place in the form of 'one-to-one' (individual advice in person). In addition, many farmers benefit from advisory services in the form of training sessions, workshops and seminars, organised by local public advisors.

Cooperation and regular (one-to-one or collective) meetings help to streamline farmers' decision-making regarding the introduction of innovation on their own farm. The role of agricultural advisory services in the region is significant. Public advisors are main advice providers for most of the farmers in the region, which is due to the long history of public consultancy in the region, trust in farmer-advisor relations, and the high competencies demonstrated by advisors in the subject of innovation.

Establishing a Living Lab (LL) brings actors with different knowledge, views and experience into a co-creation process for solving complex issues. The goal of the Norwegian LL is to develop a new advisory service for cooperation between farmers on crop rotation and the main actors are advisors, farmers and researchers. Three main dialogues are evident in the LL. It is between advisors and farmers, where advisors contacted two groups of farmers with experience in crop rotation. These are two pilots of the LL, and the aim is that advisors learn from experience in working with these farmers. The second dialogue is between researchers and farmers, where researchers have contacted farmers joining the pilots and other farmers with experience in the field. During personal and focus group interviews researchers gained knowledge about conditions for cooperation and discussed elements of a new service. The third dialogue is between advisors and researchers in project meetings to share knowledge and experience from the dialogue with the farmers, to reflect on these and discuss input to a new advisory service. Different conditions have delayed the co-creational nature of the work. The Meta project that crop rotation is a part of has recently been reorganised involving new ownership, a new project leader and a reduction of budget and activities. Other conditions, such as lack of knowledge and experience in working in a LL and the advisors' lack of prioritising, has influenced progress. For researchers it has been challenging getting involved in the project because of constant changes of project conditions and people involved. It takes time to get to know each other, develop reciprocity, openness and trust, which is decisive for the co-creation of a successful LL.

The introduction of cover cropping in Colli PIacentini viticulture practices, studied in the AgriLink project, started since the 1990s. Traditional tillage in the whole vineyard has been gradually replaced in several lots by the usage of different cover crops, often in combination with tillage, mulching or herbicide use. This practice reduces soil compaction and erosion, facilitates soil water management, increases soil organic matter, allows machinery access even in rain periods, reduces disease pressure, increases biodiversity, and reduces pest pressure. The technology is not linked to input sales, either in terms of equipment or products, and its introduction was not driven by any sort of suppliers or business actors. Today, more than 75% of farmers in the region are using permanent spontaneously grown crops in their vineyards, sometimes alternating it with tillage, other 5-10% start to introduce temporary cover crops used as a green manure.

The large majority of farmers adopted the innovation by following the example of peers, both from the neighbourhood and from other viticulture areas in Italy. The introduction and spread of the practice was supported by private agronomic consultants, while public advisory services seemed to have no role in this process. The lack of public advisory and training services resulted in relevant complaints voiced by the farmers. This experience highlights the need for assistance in the development of i) instruments facilitating peer-to-peer knowledge exchange, and ii) public advisory services, in order to access up-to-date and reliable information on innovation in viticulture. (More info: gianni.trioli@vinidea.it).

During last decades the diversity of dairy products has been lost in Navarra and the Basque Country. Most of the farmers have been focused on the production of DO Idiazabal cheese or they have sold the milk, forgetting about old recipes and existing knowledge, while clients have bought other types of cheese from other places.

Crisis and unfavourable conditions, increasing demand for other products and search for higher added value are some of the reasons that have led farmers to innovate and reintroduce new dairy products. Examples: https://izoriabaserria.blogspot.com/, www.jauregia.net/. In general, the decision to innovate is a long process that requires an intense evaluation (inversion, changing facilities, new recipes, etc.). Two different phases are identified in the decision-making process. In the first phase, those who support farmers are not necessarily linked to the innovation, and trusted advisors who help them regularly (traditional advisory service) support them in finding solutions to new problems or analysing the feasibility of different options. Associations and Rural Development Agencies are also relevant in this phase. In the second phase, apart from this advice, farmers need specific support regarding the new product and food research and innovation centres are the most important actors.

This innovation is linked to family and territory, and, in many cases, it goes hand in hand with the adoption of direct marketing by the farm. The adoption of the innovation entails farmers being able to be more independent, they don't have to abandon rural areas and it can be a new business opportunity for them. However, it also implies a greater workload and investment and having to face complex technical and administrative barriers.

Since the eighties, most of the agricultural production in Navarra has been intensified and has been commercialised by the agro-food industry. This has led to a situation in which farms have been forced to maximise their production in order to obtain adequate profit margins.

Over these years, there has not been a specific structure to support farmers who wanted to take up direct marketing. The analysis carried out in the Agrilink project shows that the adotion decision has been influenced by the opinion of reliable people (family, neighbour farmers and advisors who usually help them on other issues). In recent years an increase in the demand for local products has been consolidating and there are several initiatives to support farmers:

- Creating a brand that encompasses local products of Navarra;

- Creating a centre (www.ekoalde.org) to collect local organic products and supply them directly to the consumer;

- Establishing the foundations for the consumption of local products in collective catering.

The decision to adopt direct marketing combines agroecological values with economic and productive interests. In general, it is understood as a philosophy of life, satisfaction to be able to live in rural areas and try to produce in a different way, with higher quality, giving a higher added value to the product and having direct relationship with the consumer. See these examples: www.jauregia.net/, https://elpuenteviejo.es/

The decision not to adopt is influenced by the fact that the workload increases and that some farmers prefer to focus on production. Besides, hygienic-sanitary regulations are an important obstacle for small farms, and farmers believe that it is necessary to have a better support structure to make the adoption easier.

Historically, the use of IPM techniques in Navarra has been based on the use of preventive measures and the Pest Monitoring and Warning System, and the regional public advisory service has been key in transferring knowledge to farmers. Other IPM techniques such as biological control and the use of pheromones have been mainly used in greenhouses and vineyards by organic farmers and those who were more concerned about environmental and health issues.

In recent years, new European regulations, increasing demand, new projects and the loss of conventional chemical plant protection products, have increased farmers' need and interest to apply the techniques in other crops. The advisory landscape is more diverse since other advisory organisations play a role in this innovation area.

The surveys carried out in the Agrilink project show that farmers engage with a wide range of sources of information and advice (public and private advisors, industries, cooperatives, the Internet, etc.), although other farmers' opinion and experience are considered crucial when deciding to implement the innovation.

The decision not to adopt is driven by the fact that these techniques are considered technically more complex and more expensive, because there is a lack of demand from the market, or because of fear of worse efficiencies or less crop productivity. Nevertheless, only some farmers decide to abandon the innovation after implementation. It is therefore essential to increase knowledge and training for farmers and technicians so they can promote the use of these techniques among their farmers through continuous training, demonstrating the technical and economic feasibility of the techniques in farmers' plots and exchanging experiences and good practices.

Living Labs (LL) are a set of organisational practices involving a number of people, firms, agencies or organisations to collectively solve or moderate a problem or to develop an opportunity that is present. Based on our experiences from Norway and a Norwegian LL in the project AgriLink, we have identified some important conditions that must be present or that must be established at an early stage to make a LL a fruitful process.

• First, the participants must recognise that something is a problem, or there is an opportunity to exploit. Without such a recognition there is no basis for establishing a LL-process.

• Second, participants must recognise that there is a potential for improvement and a new solution can be developed by co-operation between various partners. If problem owners consider it is unnecessary to involve multiple actors, a LL with a broad partnership is not necessary.

• Third, key participants must take ownership of the process and possible solutions. Without ownership, it will be difficult to co-operate and make progress.

• Fourth, a facilitator for the process may be an important support. The facilitator must have the necessary competence and independence to assist in a positive way for the participants and those who have ownership of the work. Mutual trust is needed.

If these four conditions are not met, the progress of the LL may be slow or even also fail to initialise the processes. When assessing, establishing and running a LL to be effective, the organisers need to assess whether these mentioned conditions are present or whether they need to be developed. Other conditions may also be important and must be considered in every single LL. AgriLink develops both knowledge and training to improve the competence for running LLs.

According to the European Commission's legislative proposal, future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) strategic plans are expected to include a description of the organisational set-up of the Agricultural Knowldge and Innovation System (AKIS) in each Member State. In the Czech Republic, a specialised working group (WG) established by the Ministry of Agriculture was mandated to undertake a comprehensive analysis in this regard. The following the needs assessment conducted in 2019 (including outcomes of the AgriLink project) confirmed that it is essential to boost knowledge exchange and to foster innovation processes. It was revealed that the current Farm Advisory Services (FAS) do not respond to the needs of farmers. Moreover, training of advisors and advisory services do not cover the most pressing topics related to sustainability of agriculture and provision of public goods in accordance with the CAP objectives. In addition, links and knowledge flows between research and practice (including the European Innovation Partnership) are not sufficiently operationalised. As a next step, respective policies are to be designed to close the main gaps. The WG recommended the following improvements towards more interaction and cross-fertilisation among actors:

• Certification of the advisory organisations;

• Funding of the FAS within the new CAP;

• Training of advisors in new types of skills, such as facilitation, leadership and other soft skills;

• Advisory services covering new topics reflecting global challenges;

• Incentives for researchers for their impact on practice;

• Establishment of a common depository for research outputs;

• Popularisation of agricultural research and media communication.

Smart farming technologies (SFTs) such as variable-rate precision farming, milking robots, smart sensors (e.g. the “Internet of Underground Things” - Vuran et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2018.07.017) are revolutionising agriculture. This theme is also the subject of discussions on the OECD Forum (https://www.oecd-forum.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=Digitalisation+A…). They are supposed to lead to better productivity, yields and cost savings as well as support more environmentally sustainable farming practices. Despite these advantages and the growing prevalence of SFTs, patterns of adoption vary within regions and across European countries. This is in part due to characteristics of specific farms such as farm size and type, as well as changing advisory landscapes with services becoming more fragmented, and challenges for advisors and policy makers in keeping up to speed with technological developments and the changing structures of farms.

In the Agrilink project's case studies (in the UK, Czech Republic, France, Norway, Portugal and Poland) factors affecting the adoption of SFTs have been identified. These include the existing advisory landscape in the region; relationships and trust between farmers and advisors, and among farmers; the ongoing skills development of the actors in question and their capacity to stay abreast of technological developments. Therefore the challenge for traditional advisory services is to keep updated on new technology development, to recruit technologically skilled employees and to collaborate with other actors in order to provide the best advice at all key stages of implementation of SFTs.

The tightening of the Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC 5) standard (https://1url.cz/NzLAL) has increased the need to change technologies of erosion-vulnerable crops. Ensuring the covering of the soil surface with plant residues according to the requirements of the standard calls for the introduction of the principles of precision farming.

A demonstration farm was established as part of a national support scheme 9.F.m. The initial idea come out during the training under the Rural Development Plan measure 1 (https://1url.cz/KzLAM). This farm began to organise regular meetings of farmers from the region to exchange their experiences. Subsequently, advisory organisations and researchers from universities began to be invited to present their research work. Government officials from the Ministry of Agiculture have also been invited to discuss the eligibility of tested soil protection technologies to meet the GAEC 5 standard. Topics such a controlled traffic farming and its impact on the machine working width have been stressed.

Roundtables are broadcasted online so interested parties can watch discussions in real time, ask questions and, if interested, they can subsequently visit the demonstration farm. On average, 30 actors participated directly in the roundtable and the videos had over 300-5000 views.

This close cooperation initiated an establishment of an operational group (RDP measure 16.1.1 EIP, https://1url.cz/DzLAz). Cooperation and regular meetings help farmers make decisions and encourage introduction of new technologies and solutions into practice.

For more information see http://www.agkaizen.cz/ or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2043927902563626/).

The use of auxiliary crops in the cultivation of the main crop finds a growing response in agricultural practice. The Precision Farming Center (CPZ) in the Czech Republic, in collaboration with a demonstration farm, has explored the use of auxiliary crops in poppy crops to reduce the risk of erosion, increase water infiltration, reduce weed infestation, and improve the state of vegetation in general. In 2018, within the framework of the development of new technologies, a poppy seed with an auxiliary crop of spring barley was seeded. The sowing was carried out by a Bednar Omega sowing machine, allowing an independent sowing of two crops in every other row and simultaneous fertilization of poppy seed from an additional Ferti-BOX container. The amount of sown seeds of poppy was 0.8 kg/ha and 50 kg/ha of spring barley. The processes and technologies used meet the principles of the so-called precision planting systems that eliminate competition between the main and the auxiliary crops.

In assessing the impact of the presence of the auxiliary crop on the infiltration of water into the soil the infiltration was monitored on the control surface without the presence of barley and on the barley area. Better infiltration conditions were found on barley surfaces. The blue colour solution reached nearly 0.4 m into the soil. Good erosion protection of soil with barley and poppy was also manifested in torrential rainfall where no erosion had been recorded on the evaluated plots. In comparison to that, the other neighbouring poppy parcels were seriously affected by erosion, often on the whole plot area. For more information see:

https://cpz.czu.cz/cs/r-12241-aktuality/aktualne-z-terenu-mak-s-pomocno…

The Czech strategy of the agricultural sector with a view to 2030 aims, among other goals, to "increase soil protection in times of climate change with a view to sustainable farming and comprehensive development and landscape creation" (https://1url.cz/rzLxA).

In line with this objective, a binding timetable for updating the long-term average annual soil loss values was prepared. The aim of the measure is to ensure a gradual enlargement of the level of protection of erosion endangered areas from the current 10.7% to the "real" area, which is about 60% of the agricultural land. The gradual enlargement of erosion endangered areas covered by Good Agricultural Environmental Condition (GAEC) measures will allow farmers to adapt their farming practices step by step (http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/farmar/LPIS/novinky/redesing-eroze.html).

To help farmers, a web-based application was prepared under the coordination of the Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation (www.vumop.cz/en) to provide information about erosion endangered soil in selected areas and help users with the assessment of used crop rotation soil treatment and machinery.

In this application, the farmer (or advisor) can set up his/her own crop rotation, agronomic measures and dates of main agronomic operations to check if it has sufficient soil protection effects. On average, 150 users open the application per month, more than 3 thousand farmers and advisors are registered.The application also enables to split the area into several parcels which allows the farmer to modify the shape of erosion endangered areas to be able to manage these and comply with the conditions of the GAEC standard.

More information and instructions: https://kalkulacka.vumop.cz/

DES (Distretto di Economia Solidale) “Pan e Farine dal Friûl di Mieç” is a community cooperative in Friuli Venezia Giulia region (Italy) whose aims are to manage common land, improve the use of natural resources and suggest examples of innovative and sustainable value chains. In 2016, DES launched an initiative involving not only common land managers, but also farmers, part-time farmers and hobby farmers as well as a mill, bakeries and local citizens in a wheat-flower-bread value chain. To reach the initiative's goals, a combination of several innovations had to be implemented: a) organic management of farmland; b) use of best adapted varieties of wheat and evolutionary breeding materials; c) crop diversification.

To implement the innovations, constant advisory support is needed. There are no experiences in advisory schemes for part-time and hobby farmers and which tools to use to efficiently share knowledge. DES experience highlights that best results are still constant direct one-to-one contact between a farmer and an advisor, and workshops where advisors bring information and stimulate sharing. Online tools or remote meetings, or newsletters do not allow to reach the desired impact. The constant support of advisors is still needed, and since it is not economically feasible within the value chain budget, it needs to be financially supported from Rural Development Plans or other project funds.

DES is a Living Lab within the Agrilink project: https://www.agrilink2020.eu/our-work/living-labs/ More info on DES “Medio Friuli”: www.des-mediofriuli.it

Design thinking is a methodology for solving complex challenges for which no solution has yet been found. In the AgriLink living labs we develop new advisory products and services with the help of design thinking - in co-creation with farmers and other stakeholders - that are commercially viable for the advisory organization and that help the farmer to innovate and maintain his/her business. Design thinking is not linear, but means working through five phases, divergent and convergent in each phase; the best solutions are often a combination of ideas.

1) Empathize: gain empathic insight into the problem that you are trying to solve, usually through user research; within AgriLink there were sessions with groups of farmers to gain insight into their needs;

2) Define: collect, analyze information and define the core problems;

3) Ideate: generate ideas, "think outside the box", identify innovative solutions to the problem; within AgriLink we used the GPS method for brainstorming which allows to think individually and in group;

4) Prototype: identify the best possible solution for each problem, produce inexpensive, reduced versions of the product;

5) Testing: test the complete product with the best solutions.

Findings in the living labs:

• the intensity of co-creation, cooperation with the farmer and other stakeholders is not the same at every stage and also depends on the specific context;

• it is not necessary to start with empathy, you can start with an existing product or prototype;

• all living labs report iteration work through the layers as a result of changes in technology or legislation;

• empathy seems simple, but if the need is unclear, problems can arise during prototyping, take the time to clarify the needs.

Advisors in collaboration with researchers and experts in field trials help farmers in cooperatives to foster innovations that help solving problems in growing their crops.

The expansion of nitrate vulnerable zones in Navarra (Spain) has affected the cooperative of Funes by limiting the amount of nitrogen that farmers can use in their crops. The cooperative and its farmers were worried about the impact this measure may have and they were interested in taking part in the AgriLink project's Living lab (LL) experience to design a new service that deals with strategies allowing for a better management of fertilisation and irrigation of their crops.

The Institute for Agrifood Technology and Infrastructures of Navarra (INTIA) has some decision support tools (DST) already available that help the decision-making process of farmers and advisors regarding fertilisation and irrigation. During the 2019 season, some demonstrations in tomato and broccoli have been established on farmers' plots. On the one hand, experts in field trials have been in charge of the periodic monitoring of Nitrogen and water (these data are being used to validate the DST). On the other hand, farmers, advisors and the cooperative have taken part in the monitoring of the crop.

The LL experience has helped bringing together experts, advisors and farmers in seeking solutions to real problems in their plots. Experts in field trials use their data to validate the DST, so that they can be used by other farmers and advisors in other cooperatives in the future. Advisors have a key role as "innovation agents" to help the dissemination and implementation of innovation actions on farms.

Interviews in Agrilink's case studies show that when implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) innovations in their farms, farmers in Navarra (Spain) obtain their knowledge principally from advisors and other farmers who are applying the technique. Therefore, innovative farmers have a key role in the progress of the innovation and demonstrations can be a good tool to encourage it.

Valdorba cooperative, one of the Living labs (LL) that has been launched in Navarra, is developing farmers' micro networks that together with advisors promote peer to peer learning and bring the innovation closer to the cooperative. Farmers start by identifying urgent training and experimentation/demonstration needs (e.g., new techniques, alternative crops, reduction of pesticides, varieties). Then they organise periodic meetings to learn and exchange about these topics and they organise on-farm visits in which some of the innovations are tested and farmers take part as demonstrators showing their experience and learning outcomes.

The LL process has allowed identifying the needs that farmers have with regard to their crops and joining the efforts of experts in field trials, advisors and farmers to meet those needs. Farmers acquire a relevant role in the innovation process, knowledge is exchanged, innovative IPM techniques are disseminated and adoption is promoted.

This LL experience is a pilot test and the evaluation of the process will enable transferring the methodology to other cooperatives to improve the connection between experts in field trials, advisors and farmers and to contribute to reducing environmental risks in crop protection.

The introduction of pulses into conventional cropping systems has multiple interests due to the agronomic and nutritional benefits of legumes. Nevertheless, pulses such as chickpeas still occupy a marginal place in cereal farms in southwestern France and the role of advice to farmers on the spread of these crops remains little known. On-farm surveys of both adopters and non-adopters, carried out in the AgriLink project, have helped to better understand the determinants of chickpea adoption. Adopting farmers favour economic (remunerative and contractually guaranteed outlet) and agronomic (longer rotation, nitrogen autonomy, adaptation to shallow soils) factors. They generally use different sources of advice to assess and implement chickpeas while not expressing high expectations of the advice. This is because they do not perceive the introduction of chickpeas as something radically new: it is an undemanding plant and does not require new equipment. These initial results challenge research, which often highlights the uncertainties related to the lack of knowledge and know-how as a barrier to adoption. Farmers are more in expectation of a broad-based advice on the implementation of cropping systems that are both agronomically and economically efficient according to the characteristics of their farm.

The introduction of stevia in Karditsa derived from the efforts of traditional arable crops’ farmers and the local society to deal with severe competitiveness problems of crops, such as tobacco, cotton and sugar beet on the basis of scientific evidence. In the framework of projects co-funded by the EU, the Tobacco Research Centre and the University of Thessaly had carried out research on alternative crops concluding, among others, that stevia is well adapted in Karditsa. Their projects’ outcomes were disseminated through the press and seminars targeting specific farmers’ groups.

In 2012 a local group of citizens in Karditsa, being aware of these outcomes, organised such a seminar and invited academic researchers to provide information on stevia cultivation and a new stevia processing method. During the seminar participants became also aware of a preliminary market research depicting a growing interest for stevia. Afterwards, 21 professional farmers established a new generation cooperative (ASYST) - membership increased over time to 64 - engaged in the cultivation, processing and trading of stevia. Under the guidance of an academic professor the cooperative ran a number of pilots, before its members established their stevia plantations.

The main challenges farmers faced are related to the supply and the treatment of planting material as well as the process of drying the plant material (leaves), which required special and expensive drying facilities. ASYST dealt with these challenges through self-organised participatory experimentation, self-financing of equipment and holding frequent meetings/training to disseminate knowledge among its members. More information at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUCHoErVJlQ .

Farmers' markets and other forms of direct marketing - selling products without mediation - are a major distribution channel for small farmers and food processors in Latvia. Direct marketing represents a continuously evolving practice, combining old and new knowledge. It involves a broad spectrum of market, organisational and technological innovations, use of e-commerce, logistics and other services. The AgriLink project's case study on direct marketing in Pieriga, a predominantly urban region near the capital city, shows that the success of this practice is contingent upon a productive application of knowledge that is obtained both formally (e.g. from advisory organisations) and informally (e.g. via peer-to-peer learning). Yet, in this domain traditional advisory organisations are considerably less significant than in ones relating to more technical aspects of agricultural production. The role of advisory organisations is more prominent in relation to general farming and management issues, while peer-to-peer and other informal learning practices such as consulting with relatives are more important in the context of assessing and implementing direct marketing. Familiarity with successful examples, appropriate material and infrastructural conditions, use of social networks, and familiarity with the practice as such are also important factors for stimulating the uptake of new trading forms in short food supply chains (incl. online sales, direct purchasing groups). The practice of direct marketing (see e.g. http://straupestirdzins.lv/en/) involves a mix of knowledge and skills that depends on local synergies between social ties and advisory resources, allowing it to evolve despite limited institutional support.

The AgriLink living lab team in Latvia is developing an online information repository to improve the interaction of farmers and producers with advisors in horticultural processing. In the initial stages, the team focused on the co-creation aspect of the living lab methodology. The team discussed the current knowledge and information needs, and existing sources of knowledge and information at several specialised events. This was done to make sure that the online platform, and the way its content is structured, is fit for purpose. The process challenged the team’s assumptions about how ready people are to get involved in co-creation when the idea is still quite general, and required the team to adapt its approach to elicit responses from the target audience. Specifically, it quickly became clear that participants found it hard to offer concrete suggestions, even though the overall idea was believed to be clear. A crucial moment was the creation of a visual representation of the online tool, which was developed in collaboration with an artist. The visual material allowed people to give more specific feedback and recommend ways of structuring the information so that it is clear and transparent to the farmers and entrepreneurs who will use it. This suggests that productive co-creation may require team leaders to provide concrete representations of the intended result, without being afraid to take the lead and guide the creative process.

Integrated Pest Management in Imathia, an area of highly intensive agriculture in Greece, is currently practiced by 29 peach-growers’ cooperatives in order to retain their leading position in global markets while protecting the environment and public health. In this framework, in 2004 a leading cooperative in collaboration with a private advisory company introduced an innovative method of sexual confusion of insects by installing a network of micro sprayers across the fields. In 2009 more cooperatives started funding the implementation of the method; in 2016, after a proposal initiated locally, it was included in the agrienvironmental measures of the national RDP 2014-2020 and implemented by more than 2,000 peach growers, covering 2,800 and 5,500 Ha in 2017 and 2018 respectively. However, the dissemination of the innovation has not been uncomplicated, since its effectiveness depends upon the extent of its adoption and consensus is difficult to be reached in the highly fragmented landscape of numerous smallholders in the area. Many growers, though recognizing its potentials, are reluctant to adopt the method, distrusting their neighbours in being involved to the extent necessary for its success. In parallel, the implementation at an area lesser than the appropriate intensifies mistrust as far as the effectiveness and, even, the feasibility of the method is concerned. The situation poses challenges for the leaders of the co-operatives who have to take action. Moreover, the cooperating independent advisors have to deal with challenges at a technical level and enhance trust among involved actors in order to facilitate the technological transition. More about the method at: http://www.opekepe.gr/metro10_komfousio.asp.

The cultivation of avocado in Chania, Crete, initially attracted the scientific interest in 1968, when the Institute of Olive tree, Subtropical Plants and Viticulture established an experimental plantation. In 1974 the first commercial plantations were established in the area and during the decade 1985-1995 a project aiming at spreading the cultivation took place in the framework of the Integrated Mediterranean Programmes. The project did not bear fruits as only 11% of its original target was reached, since olive and citrus growers were reluctant to abandon traditional and profitable cultivations to adopt a new one whose demand was low. This situation started changing in 2008 due to the decreasing or even collapsing prices in the olive oil and oranges markets and the increasing demand for avocado globally. This triggered an explosion in demand for locally well-adapted varieties of high marketability as well as for healthy propagation material. Estimations refer to a rapid expansion of cultivated areas - especially over the last 3-4 years (80,000-100,000 new trees per year) - expecting to cover an area of more than 1,000 ha (more than double in comparison to the 450 ha in 2000). Therefore, farmers actively seek guidance and advice from public services and private sector agronomists, mainly through their personal networks. In this process, they have to overcome poor organization and coordination of actions related to the production and dissemination of reliable knowledge tailored to their needs. Nevertheless, farmers massively adopt the new cultivation even in marginal areas, thus challenging the established AKIS actors as far as their adaptability and responsiveness to such needs is concerned.

Since the 1950s, the promotion of the conventional agricultural model has been based on the dissemination of standardised technical messages from researchers to farmers, supported by agricultural advisors. The technical knowledge disseminated is part of a category of knowledge termed ‘explicit’ because it can be easily formalised and transferred. Farmer-led innovation requires a second type of knowledge, termed ‘tacit’. Contrary to explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge is acquired through learning-by-doing, problem-solving and practical experiences. The farmer observes changes in his/her environment, identifies possible problems, searches for and experiments with solutions, corrects for errors, then chooses the most appropriate solution. By doing so, the farmer develops his/her skills and innovative capability. Exchanges with other farmers within a community of practice and beyond foster the accumulation of tacit knowledge by allowing the entry of new members with different knowledge, by developing deliberation and legitimation processes. Tacit knowledge can then be converted into explicit knowledge to facilitate its dissemination. In this process, farmers are considered as experts and agricultural advisors become facilitators of the exchanges. Acknowledging the central role of tacit knowledge can thus help the different stakeholders - farmers, advisors, policymakers - to co-construct innovative technical references and agricultural services that meet the needs of each farmer and that are adapted to an increasingly constrained and uncertain environment. For more see https://www6.inra.fr/agrilink/content/download/3637/35566/version/1/fil…

Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) characterise services the main input and output of which is knowledge. A recent stream of studies on KIBS properties has a great potential to support practitioners working in the field of advisory services. First, they can help policymakers to better understand the diversity of organisations supplying advisory services to farmers. The landscape of farm advice is characterised by a growing pluralism, with new players competing or collaborating with traditional actors. These new players include SMEs and firms from upstream and downstream industries, but also from high-tech sectors. Researchers differentiate between Technological KIBS (T-KIBS), which primarily diffuse information and communication technologies (ICTs), and Professional KIBS (P-KIBS), which primarily draw on the specific competencies of advisors. Combined with a description of the status of an organisation, it enables to generate the following typology: 1) independent consultants, who sell only advice (with a distinction between P-KIBS versus T-KIBS); 2) client-owned advisory organisations; 3) embedded advisory organisations (where services come together with another activity for the farmers); 4) public or semi-public organisations; and 5) non-governmental organisations. Second, they can provide managers of advisory organisations with various tools that can support reflexivity on the distribution of resources between front- and back-office activities; on the conceptions of service performance; on the nature of service innovation. For more information see https://www6.inra.fr/agrilink/content/download/3638/35569/version/1/fil…

Biological pest control (BPC) is a method of controlling pests in agriculture, such as insects, weeds and diseases, through the use of natural enemies. As BPC involves reduced pesticide use, it is a tool to enhance biodiversity, improve water quality, producers’ and consumers’ safety, and mitigate climate change in agriculture. Five cases explored in the AgriLink project in Greece (sexual confusion of insects), Latvia (biological control of insect pests), Portugal (biological control of grapevine pests), Spain (sexual confusion and biological control) and the Netherlands (tagetes cultivation for nematode control) are exploring the roles of agricultural advisory organisations in the uptake of BPC in farms. These examples show that in supporting farmers in the adoption of BPC, advisors have to deal with a range of challenges. In general, (re)educating the agri-food community, including advisors, on natural processes in agriculture and benefits of BPC is needed. BPC has been practised for centuries with a considerable stock of local knowledge having been accumulated; simultaneously scientific advancements suggest innovative methods for increasing farm efficiency. Acknowledgement of the diversity of knowledge – including farmer knowledge and scientific knowledge and their assemblage is another challenge in BPC. Moreover, since many BPC methods are collaborative and participatory innovations, working within such collective arrangements demands new competencies and functions from advisors. Finally, ICT-literacy among advisors and farmers is of growing importance as ICT-based BPC tools are becoming commonplace.

Biological plant protection (BPP) methods are receiving growing attention among farmers as a means for protecting crops in more sustainable ways. However, farmers' knowledge and application of these methods in Latvia remain limited. According to the survey carried out in the AgriLink project, in Vidzeme region organic, small-scale, and greenhouse farmers are the principal users of biological control of insect pests. These farmers apply various experience-based methods to strengthen plants and repel insects and diseases from their fields, like spraying slurry and plant-based infusions, using crop rotation and companion planting of pest-repelling crops. Farmers find these methods have proven their efficacy in practice, are comparatively inexpensive or/and easily applicable. Often knowledge of these methods is transferred within personal social networks, including between farming generations. In turn, commercial biological pest control products are not very popular among Latvian farmers yet. Lack of information, (scientific) evidence and advice are among the key reasons restraining farmers from the application of commercial BPP products. These preliminary results suggest that improvements in agricultural education and advisory support on BPP is needed to facilitate a wider uptake and more informed use of both non-commercial and commercial BPP methods in the farming community, also taking advantage of the valuable local knowledge of farmers already successfully applying BPP.

Farmers daily generate and partly use a large amount of data (big data), produced when they register farming operations, manage Pest and Disease (P&D), use inputs, manage their herds and process their products. Almost all these operations are mandatorily registered, even if not always digitally. Farmers also use big data when applying a Decision Support Tool (DSS) for P&D management, irrigation or remotely checking crop maturity. Nevertheless, farm data could be used in a more systematic way, especially considering the complementarity with data produced by other agriculture actors such as control bodies, health and environment authorities, managers of subsidies etc. It is possible to measure almost anything on-farm and in few hours vast amounts of data can be collected, the challenge remains how data can become a useful tool for farmers, not only a burden. Today the state of art is data underexploitation, due to: a) low interoperability; b) infrastructural limitations (rural areas often not served by high speed connections, factor leading to a digital divide between farmers in areas differently served); c) lack of farmers' skills/information; d) inadequate support from usual advisory services and lack of different brokers. The issue of data ownership should also be taken into account, as so far only code of recommendations was developed (EU code of conduct on Agricultural Data Sharing, by COPA-COGECA). The lack of a regulation puts at risk farmers' rights. For more information see https://www6.inra.fr/agrilink/content/download/3620/35515/version/1/fil…

A company offering advisory services for farmers is an example of an organisation. Organisations can be regarded as systems comprised of the actors involved, their social relations, and their mutual dependency. Organisational knowledge is shared by multiple individuals and is more than the sum of each individual’s knowledge. Innovation is important for advisory services, and innovation implies change. To achieve change in an organisation, the organisation must be able to develop new knowledge and learn; however, innovation is not limited to a single action but is instead a process that is concerned with how the actors influence each other. To create something new involves breaking up established routines and conventions in organisations. The legitimacy associated with established practices must be replaced with new legitimacy and practices. Organisational learning is about being able to challenge established routines, produce new knowledge, and establish new routines. Routines are the links between the process and the structure. The practical recommendation is to be aware of the often taken for granted routines and question why and what an organisation is doing to be able to change and develop new routines. The organisation of advisory services is important for development of advisory products and implementation of new knowledge into the farming community, thus organisational learning is essential. Approaches from organisational learning theory can be applied to explore and explain how organisations work with innovation, and how organisations can improve their ability to learn and innovate. For more information see: https://www6.inra.fr/agrilink/Media/Fichier/AgriLink-conceptual-framewo…

LINSA - Learning and Innovation Network for Sustainable Agriculture - is the name for a network consisting of actors from diverse sectors of agricultural development (such as producers, customers, advisors, researchers, NGOs, SMEs, local administrations etc.) who are mutually engaged with common goals for sustainable agriculture and rural development. LINSAs are organised around a jointly developed, practiced and/or disseminated innovation. Their common rationale of network formation includes needs for knowledge, socio-economic consolidation of the innovation and collaboration for promoting the innovation. Advisors, participatory researchers and other facilitators can help LINSA to define LINSA objectives, to innovate, to find support from different sources, to build a LINSA governance structure and operation. In order to support LINSA development more effectively, they need to develop a relationship of trust with LINSA participants and care for the network’s integrity, find their own meaningful role in the network, and accept that fostering processes of innovation and learning is time-demanding. Therefore, supporting LINSA requires not only technical expertise in the field of LINSA’s innovation, but also social skills and resources, like solid facilitation skills, network and organisational development skills, and access to professional networks. For further information: www.solinsa.org and https://www6.inra.fr/agrilink/Media/Fichier/AgriLink-conceptual-framewo…

The concept of knowledge brokerage was developed in the context of linking research, policy and practice. It refers to a set of activities and processes aimed at exchanging and translating diverse individual knowledge stocks into collectively shared knowledge and innovations. Up until the 1990s, knowledge brokering was interpreted primarily as unidirectional transfer of scientific "ready-to-use" knowledge or technology from researchers and advisors to farmers. However, it has gradually been recognised that innovations leading towards more sustainable agriculture often emerge from, and are best advanced by, multi-actor learning networks where people from different contexts and with different backgrounds meet, interact and negotiate. Consequently, knowledge brokering is currently seen as an activity aimed at enhancing interactions, dialogue, mutual learning and direct collaboration between a range of actors, including farmers. Agricultural advisory services can take a central role in this process by facilitating connections and knowledge exchange among various stakeholders for joint learning and innovation. Research suggests that knowledge brokering works best within a participatory approach to so-called boundary objects that are issues of interest to several different communities but viewed or used differently by each of them. More information: https://www6.inra.fr/agrilink/Media/Fichier/AgriLink-conceptual-framewo…

"Good practices" are frequently referred to in agriculture. There are two different uses of this notion: 1) "Non-prescriptive": Interactions about “good practices” aim at sharing experience and know-how (production, advice) when observations show that for similar productions good performances can be obtained through a variety of practices. This information may help in decision making; what is a “good” practice may vary according to the objectives of the action, the context, etc. 2) "Prescriptive": Description of “good practices” is provided to stakeholders in order to set the norms of their activity. These norms can be used for various purposes (regulation, subsidies release, etc.). In this case, if a “good practice” is being legally prescribed (e.g. to specify how to use a pesticide), it will contribute to determining the liability of various stakeholders in case of an adverse effect (e.g. environmental pollution, health). This distinction between prescriptive and non-prescriptive approaches is important: what is ‘good practice’ on one farm may not lead to positive outcomes on another one, or may even have adverse effects. The normative use of the notion should be clearly identified and considered as such. It should not prevent from being curious and interact about the plurality of actual practices that coexist at the farm level, to discuss their innovative dimension, and to compare their performances. In agriculture, good outcomes are seldom achieved via a single, agreed ‘best practice’. Thus, discussing "good practices" in a non-prescriptive approach may help design new advisory services. More information can be found at https://www6.inra.fr/agrilink/Media/Fichier/AgriLink-conceptual-framewo…

Knowledge is a key resource in any domain of human activity, including agriculture. Farmers are acquiring theoretical and practical knowledge from various sources, but their status and credibility can vary. There are power relations in any production, dissemination and application of knowledge represented by various kinds of individuals and organisations, which allow or restrict them from exerting influence on these processes. This bears implications for the type of knowledge that comes to be acknowledged or rejected as valid, credible and useful by farmers, advisors, scientists, policy-makers, and other actors in the agricultural knowledge and innovation system. The sociology of knowledge, being part of a broader field of science and technology studies, aims to reveal the relations between different kinds of knowledge possessed by various stakeholder groups and the way it is being validated, communicated and applied. For instance, science-based generalisable knowledge is frequently treated as superior to individual and local practice-based knowledge of a farmer. Yet, the scientific knowledge might also turn out not to be fully applicable on a given farm due to the specific features of its location (e.g., soil characteristics, topography). In providing agricultural advisory services it is therefore important not rely only on the knowledge produced by scientists and implement one-way transfer of information to farmers, but also take into account the daily observations and insights of farmers, thus facilitating mutual knowledge exchange and helping to arrive at efficient individual solutions. For more information see: https://www6.inra.fr/agrilink/Media/Fichier/AgriLink-conceptual-framewo…

Romania has a weak and fragmented Farm Advisory System while having the biggest number of small-scale farmers in Europe. These farmers find it hard to navigate among the ever changing legislation and market conditions. The problems within the sector, like malfunctioning distribution of foodstuff, low productivity and little investment relate to a lack of proper guidance on financial and marketing issues.

The Romanian Living Lab (LL) focuses on improving the access to timely and reliable fiscal and financial information for Vărăști - Carrefour cooperative, located 30km from Bucharest, the country’s biggest consumer market. The Cooperative has over 100 members, small-scale vegetable growers, currently supplying to Carrefour supermarket, the second biggest retailer in Romania. Carrefour was instrumental in the establishment of the cooperative and currently is its only customer, reportedly supplying 37% of the supermarket’s fresh produce in 2017. Nevertheless, while membership increased by 25% within its first year of activity, the cooperative is struggling to keep up with the increased growing administrative burdens and complexity of operations.

We chose this coop due to its uniqueness: founded by a retailer (a rare situation across Europe) in a climate dominated by farmers’ lack of interest to associate given the communist “collectivization” experience but also failed recent attempts, and due to its urgent need for advisory services.

Our LL focuses on practical results by targeting the strengthening of financial and marketing capabilities within the cooperative and to draw out learnings for the development of future innovation-supporting advisory services across Europe.

The Dutch and Belgian joint living lab aims to improve innovation support to sustainable maize and soil management. The challenge is to increase awareness of the potential benefits of improved soil management and to move from a short term focus on quantity of maize produced to a more long term focus on quality of feed production. The lab is organised as a collective experimentation and learning process between advisors, farmers, contractors and researchers. Within the living lab several experiments are undertaken to develop tools and procedures to support more sustainable maize production. The stakeholders are invited to suggest experiments. In 2018 the lab is working on the following three actions: 1) Catch crop decision tree: to support the development of a practical guide and a decision support tree for the implementation of catch crops in maize production. 2) Nitrate tour: to develop a procedure for farmers to assess the water quality on their own farm, thus providing insight in their impact on the water quality. 3) Kitchen Table Talk: to develop guiding principles for Kitchen table conversation between a farmer, a contractor and an advisor to plan and organise soil management activities in maize production. The above actions are further developed by participants of the living lab in partnership with other projects and institutions. Each action will lead to practical tools or a tested procedure to be used by one or more of the stakeholder groups of the lab. One of the challenges in setting up the lab successfully is to actively involve farmers and advisors in the development of the tools and procedures. The experiences in the lab will provide insights how to use the living lab concept when working with private parties on an endeavour of public interest.

In Agrilink, the Norwegian Living Lab aims at developing innovation support service and tools for crop rotation between farms. The lab is a part of a regional agricultural innovation program L21T (Agriculture 21 Trøndelag) and is termed “Crop rotation Trøndelag”. The L21T program is a multi-actor initiative in the region of Trøndelag. In L21T a number of stakeholders (e.g. the county governor, researchers, farmers, advisors, suppliers of feed concentrates and machinery) aim at increasing value added from agriculture and improving sustainability. The ambition is to include most of the life cycle of resources and products in the main agricultural productions in the region. The Living Lab shall develop an advisory service supporting cooperation between farmers to build a shared crop rotation and thereby increase crop rotation at the regional level. Crop rotation means rotating from year to year what kinds of crops that are grown on each plot of land, for example vegetables one year and different types of grain the following years. Crop rotation can increase soil fertility and secure the health of the plants. Because many farmers practice monoculture, a way of gaining environmental and other benefits of crop rotation is to cooperate with other farmers, who grow other kinds of monocultures than yourself. In this way, you as a farmer can rotate crops on your fields without changing your productions. Through this measure, this Living Lab aims at improving agronomic knowledge and practice, leading to increased produce per hectare, reduced costs, and more climate-friendly grain farming. The Lab is currently working on forming groups of interested farmers and planning the next year’s season.

The advisory service of INTIA has more than 30 years of experience in pest management advice. Although nowadays it is mainly based on the use of pesticides, there is a clear evolution towards more sustainable strategies. Farmers and experts want to be prepared for these new strategies, so they demand a change in the advisory service, adapted to new needs in relation to IPM.

The Pest Monitoring and Warning System (PMWS) is a tool that has been used by agricultural advisors for many years to help the decision-making process of experts and farmers in the pest management of crops. In a recent European project the tool was improved, creating a platform that offers real-time information about 164 monitoring points and in which farmers and experts can contribute giving data about phenology and pests on their own crops, improving the quality of the information of the tool. Although the tool is very helpful, its use it is not much widespread among farmers and experts of the agrofood sector. It is necessary to show its functionalities and to open up the process to the end-users so that they can say which things would be useful for them and to make it easier to use. Besides the improvement in the usability of the PMWS, other points of action have been identified: training in small groups, demonstrations near their cooperatives, collective actions to improve peer to peer learning and working with new technologies such as drones, satellites and precision agriculture.

As of the next campaign, the LL strategy is going to be focused on 3 cooperatives of Navarre region. Using the LL methodology, farmers, advisors, experts on IPM and other stakeholders will be engaged in the design, test and validation of a new tailored service, which is going to consider all their practical needs.

One of AgriLink's objectives is to develop innovation services for a sustainable agriculture by making use of Living Labs. A living lab is an inquiry process. At the base is a challenge articulated by end users (e.g. farmers, advisors, consumers) involved in a problematic situation. This challenge is addressed by developing a “test product” (e.g. support services or advice products) through the design thinking process - problem analysis, generating ideas, concept development. This process is characterised by the end-users being actively involved in the development of the test product, multiple stakeholders are also involved in a process of co-creation, using different methods. Within Agrilink, two people are assigned to specific roles in each living lab. One has the role of a facilitator and is responsible for the progress of the process. The other has the role of monitor and is responsible for the quality of the process. This means that the monitor considers the process itself as an investigation and reports on it. Furthermore, the monitor is responsible for evaluating the process against agreed criteria. Living Labs face various challenges within AgriLink. One of them is limited funding, as a result of which the living labs are often linked to other, existing projects with their own objectives. Another challenge is maintaining engagement and participation of busy farmers and other stakeholders. A third challenge is to keep the needs of end users in sight.

The Latvian living lab is developing an online platform to improve the interaction of farmers and producers with agricultural advisors in horticulture. There is presently no online repository that provides farmers and producers a comprehensive picture of the relevant organisations, advisors, materials and forms of advice provision that are available in Latvia. In view of this, an online platform is being developed to bring together all the resources currently available to users of advisory services and allow them to quickly find what they need. In addition, the platform will encourage practitioners to suggest areas where advice and assistance are currently lacking. Based on this, advisors will endeavour to meet the practical and commercial needs of the horticultural community. In the process of developing this platform, the living lab team will consult with advisors to identify areas where improvements and additional courses and materials are necessary, and discuss their experiences of employing online and other digital tools in the process of assisting farmers and producers. Users of advisory services will be approached to determine what the online platform should include. The platform will become publicly accessible towards the conclusion of the AgriLink project in 2021 and will be advertised at public events dedicated to horticulture. Recommendation: The initial experience suggests that a successful development of an online platform in support of advisory services depends on (i) building a team comprised of individuals representing different stakeholder groups and (ii) linking the platform to existing web facilities maintained by respected advisory organisations. (More info: emils.kilis@gmail.com, dalija.seglina@llu.lv)

Among the 900 organic farms operating in the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia (Italy), there are wide differences concerning environmental, social, and market conditions faced by them. Farmers also greatly differ in their management style, education and training, and investment capacity. The regional branch of the national association providing farm advice, not only on agronomic issues but also market orientation and innovation, AIAB (Associazione Italiana per l’Agricoltura Biologica), needed to find a working methodology able to cater to the broad diversity of farmers’ skills and a way to fit the knowledge available to the different on-farm needs. The method chosen provides for an ongoing exchange between farmers, advisors and, sometimes, researchers. Rather than aiming at providing general guidelines, the method focuses on identifying concrete exemplary experiences of individual farms(ers) that highlight real-life problems and practical solutions relevant for other peers. Two main outputs have been made available since 2015: 1) a set of 4 regular thematic newsletters on "integrated management in organic farming" (vegetables, fruit crops, arable crops and olive), and 2) a diverse range of specialised training schemes for farmers. This peer-to-peer learning activity has led to deeper farmer engagement, sometimes longer training and innovation implementation phases, but it has reduced the number of cases of farmers' incomplete assessment of practices and has allowed for a continuous exchange among practitioners. The newsletters are available in Italian at http://www.aiab-aprobio.fvg.it/produttori/bollettini-lotta-guidata/, along with information on training opportunities. (More info: info@aiab-aprobio.fvg.it)