Towards Operational groups in ITALY

1. Towards Operational groups in ITALY Valentina C. Materia, v.c.materia@univpm.it – UNIVPM Anna Vagnozzi, vagnozzi@inea.it – INEA

2. Content • 3 examples from recent history that could have been an operational group • 3 examples (real or imagined) that would not qualify as an operational group • What are bottlenecks in your country for farmers to discuss and be active in innovation? • How can EIP / Operational Groups address these bottlenecks? • How can Operational Groups be set up and farmers be motivated ? • What are bottlenecks in linking farmers with other stakeholders (business, ngo’s, research) ?

3. “Existing” OG: case 1Project: “Riduca reflui” http://riducareflui.venetoagricoltura.org/ • What challenge / opportunity does “OG” discuss? Reduction of water pollution due to the use of animal waste, in compliance with the Nitrates Directive. Search for technological and managerial solutions at farm or consortium level. An issue the farmers of Veneto Region feel as crucial. • How did the “OG” start, who initiated? This OG was born at the request of the farmers' organization demanding technological and managerial solutions for livestock waste, but it was promoted by the Veneto Region. • What have been the key success factors for the “OG”? Integration between Research and Extension. Different tools were used: - Research activities realized in farms already using innovative tools; - Training of technical facilitators belonging to the farmers organizations: they are now at farms disposal in different territories of the Veneto Region; - Technicians took part in the activities in the farms along with researchers; - An on-line area of exchange and communication among technicians was developed. • How have (national) policies contributed to the “OG”? The project was promoted and financed by the Regional Administration. Indications deriving from the project have been implemented even in the formal documents the Regional Administration had to implement on this specific topic.

4. “Existing” OG: case 2 “Consortium of research, experimentation and dissemination for the horticultural chain in Piedmont” • What challenge / opportunity does “OG” discuss? To keep R&D constantly fastened to the needs expressed by the fruit&vegetable chain in Piedmont CRESO has both a Board of Directors with a prevailing public component that decides the annual budget, and some Technical Committees with mostly private component (producer groups) that, within the approved budget, decide the research topics and supervise how they are carried out. • How did the “OG” start, who initiated? CRESO is a research and experimentation body whose majority shareholder is the Piedmont Region. However, the current governance setting derives from a strong interest the fruit&vegetable associations have with respect to its R&D activity: they are now in the decision-making bodies (technical committees). CRESO’s leader have a very participatory personality. • What have been the key success factors for the “OG”? The joint design and verification of experimental activities coordinated by researchers, technicians and entrepreneurs of the fruit&vegetable sector. Technicians attend regular meetings on experiments results and introduce the problems of the farms to the researchers. The productive association organizes the production plans of planting new orchards on the basis of the results of variety trials of CRESO. • How have (national) policies contributed to the “OG”? CRESO is financially supported by the Piedmont Region, but some of its experimental projects are funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (e.g. lists of varieties)

5. “Existing” OG: case 3Multiregional Operational Program (POM) activities in support of services for agriculture: Measure 2 "Technological innovations and transfer of research results" - 1994/1999 • What challenge / opportunity does “OG” discuss? Measure 2 was included in the POM program managed by MIPAAF with the collaboration of the Regions (as part of the Monitoring Committee) to disseminate with greater efficiency the innovations produced by the research activity. It funded applied research in the context of which both research facilities and advisory structures were to be involved. • How did the “OG” start, who initiated? The research institutions responded to competitive R&D calls with projects whose contents were agreed with at least two Southern Italy Regions and were considered as the region's agricultural needs. Each region collaborated on the project through advisory structures operating in its territory and that realized dissemination activities for the farms. • What have been the key success factors for the “OG”? Over a period of 5 years, 77 research/dissemination projects were realized for a total investment of about 50 million euro. The key success factor was the joint collaboration of researchers and consultants which in many cases has continued even after the conclusion of Measure 2. • How have (national) policies contributed to the “OG”? MIPAAF and the Regions co-financed the intervention as required by the EU regulation on rural development.

6. Case 1 that would not qualify as OG The operational groups should not be aimed at economic and rural development of an area or sector in general (no Leader, no Integrated Projects), but focus their intervention on innovation(s) that can contribute to the economic and rural development of a sector or territory. The members of the operational groups, therefore, should be not all the stakeholders of an area or a territory, but those who can contribute to the better selection and diffusion of innovations designed to solve specific problems

7. Case 2 that would not qualify as OG The operational groups should not carry out research, rather promote the transfer of the innovative results available. Each identified component of the innovation(s) chain (research, advisory, business) should have equal importance and decisional weight

8. Case 3 that would not qualify as OG The operational groups should be different from the Technological Platforms: they should be complementary to them but their aim should be only/principally to transfer innovations and innovative solutions to concrete and well known problems felt by the farmers

9. Bottlenecks for farmers to discuss and be active in innovation • Individual farmers: • RESISTANCE TO INNOVATION + ECONOMIC CRISIS: • They only know procedures and effects of the practices already used/tested • Low level of education: what is new is little known • Crisis will reduce the investments in innovation • LITTLE ENCOURAGED: in general, advisors do not present efficiently the positive effect an innovation can have in terms of solutions to real problems • Fear of supporting HIGH COSTS: advisors do not have the habit of presenting innovations in terms of economic and financial impact on the farm structure • Fear of being left alone in the acquisition process of an innovation and of not finding answers to their specific questions • Farmers associations: • Lack of awareness of the real needs of individual farms • Lack of expertise and information on both the state of innovation in agriculture and the opportunities that may be offered to farms • Promoting innovation goals via RDP measures that only indirectly give benefit to the farmer reduces the resources available for the measures with direct influence, such as: investment, compensatory measures of income, etc..

10. How can EIP / Operational Groups address these bottlenecks? • Making farmers aware of situations in which the innovations at issue have had a successful application (information anddissemination) • Providing supporting and tutoring paths for farmers to implement innovations • Providing and funding training for advisors • Finding ways and means best suited to understand which PROBLEMS and OPPORTUNITIES farms are living in this moment The level of action of the OG should be LOCAL If GENERAL, it must address system issues that improve the farmers’ lives (e.g. supplying support structures: database information on prices, consumer needs, processes, product analysis, protocols for such processes, etc.) • The activity of the OGs should be preceded by specific analysis of the farmers needs and carried out by experts • Providing participation not only of individual companies, but also of CLUSTER or ASSOCIATIONS and their representatives (who carry on instances of the product and not of the category)

11. How can Operational Groups be set up and farmers be motivated ? • Set up: • Different levels of decision: • Institutional level • Territorial level • Role of research facilities • Farms and services providers involvement Italy is thinking of three options of institutional level for the start-up phase of the OGs: • National • Regional • Joint National - Regional • HOW to motivate farmers: • Introducing a REWARD mechanism (financial incentives - prioritization) • For measures providing for a technical application of the production process, the adoption of innovation identified by the OGs should be encouraged (e.g. Measure of investment. If the problem is to renew a barn, the farmer adopts the innovation identified by the OG) • As the previous slide: • Presenting examples of successful application of new knowledge • Involving farmers through meetings with business realities, focus groups…

12. Bottlenecks in linking farmers with other stakeholders? • To preach a bottom-up approach, but in fact to proceed with a top-down approach To assume to know without doing an analysis of the farmers needs Errors in identifying the real needs • Lack of ability to communicate • Poor weight of Extension in the innovation chain (weak link in the chain because of the lack of structured means of interaction with stakeholders) • Propensity of individuals to look after their own interests and not those of the community (e.g. the researcher wants to publish, the farmer to solve the problem, the company to gain from prototype / machine/ model etc.).