tpo_dossier_action-plan-for-innovation-and-learning_201406

EuropeanTechnology PlatformACTION PLANFOR INNOVATIONAND LEARNINGIn cooperation with

ACTION PLAN FORINNOVATION AND LEARNINGBRUSSELS, JUNE 2014CONTENTPublished byTP OrganicsRue du Commerce 1241000 BrusselsBelgiumPhone: +32 2 280 6844Email: info@tporganics.euWebsite: www.tporganics.euIn cooperation withIFOAM EU GroupRue du Commerce 1241000 BrusselsBelgiumPhone: +32 2 280 1223Email: info@ifoam-eu.orgWebsite: www.ifoam-eu.orgARC2020c/o Zukunftstiftung LandwirtschaftMarienstraße 19–2010117 BerlinGermanyPhone: +49 30 284 82 326Email: contact@arc2020.euWebsite: www.arc2020.euEditors: Bram Moeskops, Francis Blake, Marie-ChiaraTort, Eva TorremochaEditorial Advisory Committee: Eva Torremocha,Anna Häring, Susanne Padel, Stéphane Bellon, GeirLieblein, Gianluca Brunori, Charles FrancisConcept Development: Bram Moeskops, EduardoCuoco, Christoph Furtschegger, Susanne Padel, AnnaHäring, Otto Schmid, Cristina MicheloniProduction support: Ivan Marko StazićLayout: Fuel. www.fueldesign.beThis brochure was printed on Satimat FSCPrint run: 1,000INTRODUCTION 31. LEARNING AND INNOVATION IN ORGANIC ANDAGROECOLOGICAL FARMING 52. EXAMPLES OF LEARNING AND INNOVATION IN ORGANIC ANDAGROECOLOGICAL FARMING 142.1. The Participatory Guarantee System of Nature & Progrès(France) 162.2. Bio-districts: the organic approach to rural development (Italy) 172.3. Flourishing Farm: participatory innovations in agriculture andnature conservation (the Netherlands) 182.4. Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity - Bucegi MountainsBrânză de Burduf (Romania) 192.5. Sustainability Training for Organic Advisors (STOAS) 202.6. Multifunctional Agriculture in Europe - Social and EcologicalImpacts on Organic Farms (MAIE) 212.7. Agroecological values as basis for development (FECD, Ecuador) 232.8. Duchy Originals Future Farming Programme (United Kingdom) 232.9. Flemish Research & Knowledge Network for Organic Foodand Farming (Belgium) 242.10. Strategies for Organic and Low-input Integrated Breedingand Management (SOLIBAM) 252.11. Crops & Animals Together (CANTOGETHER) 262.12. Knowledge and Innovation Network for Organic Food andFarming at Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development(Germany) 272.13. Phenomenon-based, experiential and just-in-time learningat the Norwegian University of Life Sciences 283. THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH, INNOVATION ANDLEARNING IN THE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECTOR 30Illustrations:Cover: INRA SAD Rennes - Le Rheu; Chapter 1: ©BLE,Bonn/Foto: Thomas Stephan; 2: © Green PlantProtection Project; 2.1: © N&P; 2.2: © Salvatore Basile;2.3: © M. M. Bos; 2.4: © Alberto Peroli; 2.5: © Bioland;2.6: © Gut Sambach GmbH; 2.7: © FECD; 2.8: © SoilAssociation; 2.9: © CCBT; 2.10: INRA SAD Rennes-LeRheu; 2.11: © Salvatore Basile; 2.12: ‘Research Service(ARS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)’ byU.S. Department of Agriculture published under theCreative Commons 2.0 license: at flickr.com: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/9076408015; 2.13:© Tor Arvid Breland; 3: © European Commission4. CONCLUSIONS 39REFERENCES 41EuropeanTechnology Platform

3INTRODUCTIONThe world doesn’t stand still: nature is evolving, theclimate is changing, populations are rising, markets aredeveloping, consumer expectations are increasing. Thusagriculture is under pressure in all sorts of ways. All thoseinvolved have to adapt to meet and overcome thesechallenges if their businesses are to thrive so they cansustain their livelihoods.How do they do this, and turn these challenges intoopportunities? Where should we look for successfulexamples out there? What are the key components ofcontext, of strategy, of practice that enable success?What institutional policies can facilitate and supportthese? Learning and innovation are increasinglyrecognised as being at the heart of successful adaptationand change to meet the challenges facing Europe andindeed the World.The intent is clear in the EU’s wider policies.• The EU’s Innovation policy is geared towards “smart,sustainable and inclusive growth”.• Putting ideas into practice has become thecentral goal of Horizon 2020, the EU’s FrameworkProgramme for Research & Innovation for 2014-2020. In comparison with earlier EU research policy,the focus has shifted from research for its own saketo innovation with tangible impact.• Innovation support has been strengthened in theEU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).• The objective of the new European InnovationPartnership for Agricultural Productivity andSustainability (EIP-AGRI) is to bridge the gapbetween agricultural researchers and practitioners.It will operate through Horizon 2020 and the RuralDevelopment pillar of the CAP.• Erasmus+ recognises the need for “education, skillsand creativity in a knowledge society”.In fact, the EU’s policies and instruments arebecoming more closely aligned with organic andagroecological objectives, so the door is openingfor these approaches. The EIP-AGRI aims to marryproductivity and sustainability, contributing to a “steadysupply of food, feed and biomaterials, developing itswork in harmony with the essential natural resources onwhich farming depends”. The new rural developmentregulation requires the EIP-AGRI to promote a resilientagricultural sector working towards agroecologicalproduction systems.More specifically, the European Commission’s recentlypublished Organic Action Plan recognises that “organicproduction has to maintain its innovative role, ininfluencing non-organic production with its rules andthe techniques applied.” It also recognises that “organicproduction has become a highly specialized agriculturalsystem, which requires specific professional education,knowledge and technologies.”Bearing the above in mind, this publication will setout a blueprint for learning and innovation in organicand agroecological farming (chapter 1). It is intended tobe an exemplar for learning and innovation in farmingand food systems generally.How this blueprint operates in action will be set outin 13 examples covering a wide range of innovativemethodologies for learning, stakeholder participation,research and innovation (chapter 2). Indeed, organicand agroecological farming has a long history of strongcollaboration between researchers and practitionersand across disciplines.The next chapter will analyse what opportunitiescurrent EU policy instruments offer for organic andagroecological innovation (chapter 3).Based on the experiences with agroecology andorganics, the publication will finish with policyrecommendations for better promoting innovation andlearning support in Europe’s food and farming sector(chapter 4).

401

5LEARNING AND INNOVATIONIN ORGANIC AND AGROECOLOGICAL FARMING1.1.SOME DEFINITIONSWhilst first publications mentioning agroecologyalready appeared in the early 20th century, it was onlyafter the 1970s that studies in agroecology grew morerapidly. A milestone in the development of agroecologywas the publication of Miguel Altieri’s book “Agroecology,the Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture” in 1983.Altieri defined agroecology as the application of ecologyto agriculture. However, he gave it a political dimensiontoo, embodying a strong criticism of the impacts of theGreen Revolution. Twenty years later, Francis et al. (2003)enlarged agroecology to the whole food system linkingproduction with the food value chain and consumption.It is now more than just a scientific discipline, and is alsoa movement, and indeed a practice (Wezel et al., 2009),with a global presence, but by its inherent nature, withvery regional manifestations.As a scientific discipline, agroecology studies thefour properties of agroecosystems (productivity,stability, sustainability and equitability) through aninterdisciplinary lens. It encompasses agronomy,ecology, sociology, economics and indeed politics, andat all relevant scales from gene to biome, from field toglobal.As a movement, agroecology has become a frameworkfor integrating ecological, socio-economic and politicalaspects of agro-food systems. This framework challengesstereotypical boundaries between society and nature,likewise boundaries between science and society.biodiversity and the environment from the productionof food (land sparing as opposed to land sharing). Rather,agroecology emphasizes inherent linkages betweenthem. It explores alternatives based on autonomyand the careful use of resources (Stassart et al., 2012),so as to reduce dependence on external inputs andimprove sustainability. At the same time, agroecologyis becoming a new buzzword, perhaps analogous to‘sustainable agriculture’. The term ‘agroecology’ has beenrecently adopted by some actors who also promoteconventional agriculture.Organic farming first emerged in Europe, and wasthe result of several influences. Rudolf Steiner gave aseries of eight lectures in Austria in 1924 that laid thefoundations of biodynamic agriculture. Then LadyEve Balfour espoused the links between the health ofsoil, plants, animals and people, founding the UK SoilAssociation in 1946. Also in the 1940s in Switzerland,Hans and Maria Müller and Hans-Peter Rusch developeda natural approach to farming particularly using rockdusts. There were developments in the USA too, whereJ.I. Rodale started publishing Organic Farming andGardening in 1942.Most of the organic movements around the globeare united by the International Federation of OrganicAgriculture Movements (IFOAM). It has developed fourprinciples of organic agriculture, specifically: health,ecology, fairness and care. These encapsulate the ethosand practice of organic production and are widelysupported.As a practice, agroecology eschews the dominantmonoculture model with its dependence on externalinputs, where maximising yield (output per hectareor per man hour) is the main criterion of success. Itquestions likewise the dominant model of natureconservation that separates the protection ofOrganic agriculture is now also well defined in law. Itsproduction rules, marketing requirements and controlprocedures have legal status in many countries, alsoin the EU and the Codex Alimentarius Commission ofFAO. Despite this, with the widely differing geographical,climatic and developmental conditions in different

6countries, there is variation in legal standards aroundthe World - though practices on farms often exceedthe minimum legal requirements within each country.Nevertheless, all follow the same broad principles andobjectives and there is a huge international trade in organicproducts.In addition to the regulated organic farming of themajor organic markets, there is also much unregulated,smallholder/peasant-based organic farming supplyinglocal markets. However, unregulated does not necessarilymean uncontrolled: there are often sophisticated, selforganisedsystems ensuring integrity, good practice andinformation sharing. Some call themselves agroecological,not organic.Notwithstanding their different histories, there are strongoverlaps between organic agriculture and agroecology.Both promote a ‘closed system’ approach to minimiseexternal inputs, use multiple and diverse crops and/oranimals, and rely on biological processes for building soilfertility and controlling pests and diseases (Bellon et al.,2011). Both tend to favour more direct links with theircustomers and to engage with social movements. Bothseek to improve wider agricultural systems towards greatersustainability using similar approaches, and both are opento learning and are ambitious to probe, to improve and todevelop their practices towards this goal – exactly one ofthe goals of this publication.Thus, whilst not quite synonymous, organic farming andagroecology are strongly related and are complementarybedfellows.Innovation is a broad concept that is generally definedas the development, introduction and application ofnew ideas, processes, products or procedures where aneconomic or social benefit is assumed for individuals,groups or entire organisations (Maier, 2001; Aichner et al.,2000). Put simply, it is something original, therefore new,that “breaks into” a market or society.Innovation could be seen as sitting in betweeninvention and improvement. Invention is the creation ofan idea or method, whereas innovation is developing andimplementing a better, novel idea or method. It refers tothe notion of doing something different. Improvement,on the other hand, is simply about doing the same thingbetter.Many scientists and researchers have studiedinnovation with the aim of identifying the different formsof innovation and documenting the associated structuresand policies. These include:• Schumpeter et al. (1980) defined three phases ofthe innovation process: invention (when ideas aregenerated), innovation (putting ideas into practice),and diffusion (the widespread application of theinnovation);• Smits et al. (2010) described innovation as eithermacroeconomic (more linear, like ‘technologytransfer’), or institutional (more the whole innovationsystem);• Li et al. (2008) differentiated between exploitative(refining, leveraging and extending existingknowledge) and explorative (searching for newalternatives or unfamiliar, distant and remoteknowledge);• Meißner (2001) and Knickel et al. (2009) identifieddifferent groups who perform different tasks in thevarious phases of the innovation process: knowledgeproducers (researchers, R&D departments),knowledge users (commerce, consumers, farmers),knowledge brokers (advisory services, the educationsystem, NGOs) and political decision-makers;• Padel et al. (2010) in the TP Organics ImplementationAction Plan argued for a broad understanding ofinnovation, distinguishing between:• technology innovation, generated mainlythrough lab-based science and technology,and then transferred to users such as farmers,advisory services, and policy makers;• know-how innovation, knowledge aroundmethods and practices, often the result ofparticipatory research, spanning the normalboundary between knowledge producers andusers; it makes ‘tacit knowledge’ explicit andoften combines new and traditional knowledge;• organisational innovation, changes inmanagement and cooperation amongstakeholders across the agro-food value chain(e.g. researchers, seed breeders, extensionservices, farmers, retailers, consumers, civilsociety);• social innovation, change of behaviour of groupsin wider society establishing new relationships.

7In the food & farming sector, the term AgriculturalKnowledge & Innovation Systems (AKIS) is often usedto describe all the various actors and their interactions.Originally, AKIS was the acronym for AgriculturalKnowledge & Information Systems and defined as “aset of agricultural organisations and/or persons, andthe links and interactions between them, engagedin the generation, transformation, transmission,storage, retrieval, integration, diffusion and utilizationof knowledge and information, with the purpose ofworking synergistically to support decision making,problem solving and innovation in agriculture” (Röling& Engel, 1991). The AKIS concept has since evolved as ithas opened up to more public tasks and to the supportof innovation (Klerkx & Leeuwis, 2009).Although extension, education and research areoften considered as the most essential parts of AKIS, itis important to realise that there are many more actorsin the food chain that directly influence the decisionmaking of farmers and their innovations (figure 1.1).Which actors are the most important depends onthe actual problem to solve and farming systems.For example, input suppliers only play a minor role inorganic farming. On the other hand control bodies havein many cases a strong influence on the decisions takenby the organic farmer. Citizens and NGOs can also have astake in the innovation process, as organic farmers tendto favour direct links with consumers and to engagewith society (figure 1.2).The Standing Committee on Agricultural Research(SCAR) set up a Collaborative Working Group onAKIS (CWG AKIS) to review the ‘state of the art’ of AKISthroughout the EU. Its report in 2012 revealed a widevariation in structures, activities and cohesion in AKISbetween European countries, regions and sectors (EUSCAR, 2012). In a subsequent report, it recommendedthat AKIS themselves need to innovate, to adopt newways of working, including facilitating more interactiveinnovation and incentivising innovation processeswithin research (EU SCAR, 2013).AG. PRESSACCOUNTANTSBANKSCOMM. SERVICESINPUTSUPPLIERSFarmersFOODPROCESSINGRETAILCONSUMERSEXTENSIONEDUCATIONRESEARCHFigure 1.1. Actors in the AKIS directly relevant for agricultural innovation in the food chain.Source: EU SCAR (2012) modified. Note: Commercial services include laboratories, veterinarians, managementsoftware, notaries, land brokers etc.

8CONTROL BODIESNGO’SAG. PRESSACCOUNTANTSBANKSCOMM. SERVICESINPUTSUPPLIERSFarmersFOODPROCESSINGRETAILCITIZENSEXTENSIONEDUCATIONRESEARCHFigure 1.2. Actors in the AKIS relevant for innovation in the organic and agroecological food chain.Source: EU SCAR (2012) modified1.2.A SYSTEMS APPROACH TOINNOVATIONAll these terms and concepts are useful inunderstanding the possible range of innovation models,the actors involved and the stimuli that help to facilitateinnovation. However, innovation by its very nature isnot necessarily so quantifiable, nor indeed so easilycategorised. In essence, it is a creative, often bottom-upprocess that happens in response to pressure or need(of whatever kind); it may not sit so comfortably in themore top-down, linear, institutionalised environment ofconventional policymaking and research.Of course, elements of the former are increasinglybeing found in the latter:• inter- and trans- disciplinary research is becomingcommonplace (i.e. combining disciplines, andcrossing disciplinary boundaries, within research);• NGOs and SMEs are now often required partners inEU research consortia;• advisory services are responding to the changingpolicy climate and are innovating in their own right;• farmers and consumers are more and moreinvolved as active players;• all these are often stimulated by new and emergingresearch policy decisions, of which a primeexample is the recent Horizon 2020 and its variousassociated instruments.The AKIS model is beginning to reflect this (thoughthere still is some way to go) and all these developmentsare to be welcomed. Innovation is likely to be fosteredwhen the divisions between knowledge producers,users and brokers, and indeed decision-makers, arebroken down. For all actors have, use and distributeknowledge in their different ways. All need to beable to contribute their perspectives and needs, theirexperience and expertise, their knowledge and ideas.It is when such equality is recognised and respectedthat knowledge can circulate and the spark of crossfertilisation can happen. Then, the creative process ismost likely to be productive.This is what might be called the systems approachto innovation. The challenge, therefore, is to ensure theright environment for the creative, bottom-up processto flourish.

91.3.The importance of overall policy for creating the rightenvironment is key. Just because the policy framework,the research funding conditions and the hierarchyof decision making are all made at ‘the top’, the resultdoes not have to be linear, top-down structures andstultifying bureaucracy.For example, the meso-level of municipalities, citiesand regions are increasingly becoming important playersin promoting innovation in the food & farming sector.Many alternative food networks have steadily gainedground with support from local public authorities. Manymunicipalities use their public procurement policy(e.g. for schools and hospitals) to support regional andorganic producers and simultaneously deliver theirown health and education policies, and boost the localeconomy.In fact, many of these innovations were onlysupported by the municipalities after they had beenlaunched and had demonstrated they were successful,or the social pressure became too much to ignore.However, they at least had the freedom and the visionto take action when they felt able, and then to supportfurther innovation and development.So, the systems approach to innovation is fostered byboth a favourable policy environment, and conditionson the ground that facilitate information sharing andmutual respect. These two influences together canunlock creativity and foster cooperation.LEARNING AND INNOVATIONIN ORGANIC ANDAGROECOLOGICAL FARMINGLearning and innovation in organic and agroecologicalfarming happen through the whole farming system andfood chain, in rural society generally. There are numerousand inspiring examples. These are sometimes because of,and sometimes in spite of, relevant policies and support.The quality of innovation they demonstrate and theirsheer variety are testament, not only to the ingenuityand boldness of those involved (sometimes forcedinto self-reliance by the lack of institutional supportafforded to agroecological and organic farming), butalso to the creativity and open mindedness fostered byagroecological and organic approaches.It is through these examples that we set out ablueprint for learning and innovation in organic andagroecological farming. This section, therefore, will covera wide range of innovative methodologies for learning,stakeholder participation, research and innovation thathave been developed around the world. More detailedinformation on many of these various examples can befound in the next chapter.Applying agroecological principles to learning leadsto methodologies where the main focus is in exchangingknowledge between involved stakeholders. Therefore,those methodologies are going to vary depending onwhere and with whom the learning experience is held.These interactions can be classified into four broadareas, though there is considerable overlap:• Self-help• Extension• Research• Education1.3.1 Self-helpNormal extension activities involve advisors orother ‘experts’ visiting a farm or organising a course todispense their knowledge to the farmers concerned.In developing countries, there are few advisors, andsometimes no extension infrastructure at all. Wherethere is, it is often associated with aid-financed, exportorientedproduction, wholesale changes of cropping,agrochemical usage and the accompanying burden oftied contracts and deepening debt cycles as soil fertilitydrops and/or prices drop. But mostly, the farmers are leftto their own devices to sink or swim. In the global North,most extension activity is geared towards larger farms,and smaller farms tend to be ignored.It is therefore amongst smaller farmers, in both theglobal South and North, that the most innovative meansof extension have emerged, founded on self-help andthe resourcefulness of the farmers themselves. Actuallymuch early development of organic farming in Europewas based on self-help and in many countries farmernetworks are still an important motor for this, e.g. Biolandin Germany or AIAB in Italy. Below are three types of selfhelpmodels that have developed where there has beenno extension infrastructure to help farmers with theproblems they encounter.

10CONVENTIONAL EXTENSIONResearchers develop a technologyThey conduct field trialsat an experiment stationThey do more trialson a farmer’s fieldExtensionists set up demostrationplots, and host field days for farmers,and/or visit farmers to promote thetechnologyThe peasant family adoptsor rejects the technologyCAMPESINO TO CAMPESINOA peasant alreay has a solution,or innovates a solution, to a problemthat is common for many peasantsS/he becomes a promoter of this newor rediscovered solutionExchanges are set up, where otherpeasants visit his or her farm to learn,or where s/he visits the farms ofother peasants to share the solutionwith themOther peasants teach other peasantsthisas well as other solutionsFigure 1.3. Conventional agricultural extension versus Campesino-a-Campesino. Source: Machín Sosa et al. (2010)The Campesino a Campesino movement wascreated and developed in Guatemala during the 1970s(Holt-Giménez, 2006). Basically, farmers exchangeknowledge among themselves to solve problems. It isa participatory method based on local needs, culture,and environmental conditions. The innovative aspectis the central role that farmers play as well as the newrole that the technician, should there be one, has toassume. S/he does not come with a recipe solution, buthas to support and facilitate the exchange processes.Exchanges take place at the farms that are well knownenvironments for farmers. As a result, they feel morecomfortable and will be more motivated to participateand express themselves (Figure 1.3).Campesino a Campesino is now well establishedthroughout Central America. It has several hundredthousand farmer-promoters and has helped ruralfarming families improve their livelihoods and conservetheir natural resources. Through this, hundreds ofthousands of smallholders have been able to developsustainable agriculture, even under highly adverseconditions – indeed for many it has been the lifeline oftheir survival.Campesino a Campesino’s extensive knowledgenetworks have been highly successful in generatingand spreading sustainable agricultural practices onthe ground. In effect, it has decentralized the practice ofagricultural development. This is both a measure of andan explanation for its successes. If agriculture is to besustainable, it must not only be based on the ecology ofthe specific agroecosystem where it is being practiced,it must evolve from the social structures and cultures inwhich the system itself is embedded. The opportunity isthen for these embedded, agroecological experiences toscale out, geographically, and up into the institutions thatshape agriculture’s social, economic, and political terrain.Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) wereoriginally created by local farmer organisations to providecheaper organic certification for their small farmerssupplying local markets. One of the first PGS of Europeis that of Nature & Progrès in France. PGS have nowbeen developed in every continent. They often includeconsumer organisations for better communicationbetween the two constituencies.The starting thesis is that farmers want to adhere tothe standards, so certification is not seen as a repressivetool. On the contrary, it is a helpful one that supportsfarmers and processors to improve their procedures. PGSpromote, within the standard requirements, an on-goingprocess aimed at increasing sustainability performance.They finally turn into a learning experience, basedon exchange between farmers themselves and withconsumers.

11PGS work on the basis of six principles: common vision(described by the standard), participation, horizontality,transparency, trust and learning process. Peer-review 1is at the centre of the system. The inspection is doneby a farmer, who is clearly a professional with empiricknowledge and a full understanding of the local farmingconditions. Every member stands at the same level andeach member is responsible for one of the certificationsteps, on a rotational basis. Transparency and trust gotogether and build naturally upon these foundations.The learning process is one of the main characteristicsof PGS. The certification becomes an opportunity forfarmers to get to know other farms, to discover otherfarming methods, and to exchange experiences withpeers that work in the same region with the sameagronomic and socio-economic problems. Even thoughPGS were originally created as a certification tool, they areactually multidisciplinary networks, locally based, wherefarmers and stakeholders meet to exchange and to createsolutions based on a diversity of views, experiences andknowledge.Community supported agriculture (CSA) is analternative, locally based economic model of farmmanagement and food distribution. Its origins stem frombiodynamic farming in Europe, but it became establishedin the 1980s in the USA, and then spread back to Europe,especially in the UK as a response to the economicrecession and the resulting pressure on small organicproducers.CSA members or subscribers pledge to support one ormore local farms and pay a subscription at the onset of thegrowing season for a share of the anticipated harvest. Thisis distributed weekly, often by means of a box scheme.Thus growers and consumers share the responsibilities,risks and rewards of food production.There are almost as many models as there are CSAs,with varying levels of support right up to the farm beingowned by its CSA members. Similarly most CSAs involvetheir members in the work of the farm. This can rangefrom simple open days right up to regular work weekendswhich may or may not count towards the financialsubscription.CSAs are perhaps the most sophisticated andinnovative example of short supply chains around theWorld. What they all have in common is the direct link1 By peers we understand farmers that are producing thesame crops or breeding the same animals.between farmers and consumers. Besides the marketingaspect and security for the farmers, these initiatives arealso platforms for learning and exchange. The farmers arein direct and continuous contact with their customers,so get almost instant feedback on the quality of theirproduce and what their customers want; the consumershave access to all the production information of the farmand can experience farming first hand.Furthermore, some of the CSA members are likelyto have additional skills, e.g. accountancy, marketing,conservation, etc., that the farmer and the farm canbenefit from – a skills resource ‘on tap’. Finally, with theadded security afforded by sharing risks, farmers aremore able to free up resources and experiment withnew practices, becoming in themselves a source of newinformation for other farmers.1.3.2 ExtensionTraditionally the mainstream system of agriculturaladvice did not cover the needs of the organic sector oragroecological farmers. Alternative extensions serviceshave been created that facilitate the exchange ofknowledge among organic farmers, help improvingproduction techniques and empower rural communitieswhile increasing overall sustainability. Many initiativesgrew out of the niche and are now recognised andsupported by authorities at local, national or EU level.Six interesting and ground-breaking examples are givenbelow (and expanded in chapter 2), showing a range ofaims, partners and methodologies.Bio-districts, the organic approach to ruraldevelopment, were pioneered by local organic farmersand their association in Southern Italy. A bio-districtis a geographical area where farmers, citizens, touristoperators, associations, industry, research and trainingcentres, and public authorities enter into an agreementfor the sustainable management of local resources.Bio-districts create a local network of natural, culturaland productive resources, reinforced by local policiesoriented towards the protection of the environment,traditions and local knowledge. They promote thenatural, typical, organic products of the area, togetherwith short food chains, also supplying public offices andschools. These are inextricably linked with the promotionof the land itself and its special characteristics, so togetherthey can fully realise their economic, social and culturalpotential. This benefits tourism and the local economywhilst ensuring sustainability of local resources.

12This innovative process is a workshop of ideas andinitiatives aimed at fair trade and local developmentbased on the organic production model.Flourishing Farm (Bloeiend Bedrijf ), a Dutch agrienvironmentscheme for sustainable crop protection, is acollaborative project funded by the Common AgriculturalPolicy in which hundreds of farmers are working togetherwith scientists and a range of local organisations. They areincreasing beneficial biodiversity by developing flowerrichfield margins for natural enemies (beneficial insects)of crop pests.Key to the project are the Flourishing Farm fieldmeetings. In these, discussions, demonstrations andinteraction between farmers and scientists create aparticipatory learning environment. The farmers startexperimenting with more sustainable crop protection,which is followed by group evaluations allowing furtherexchange. The Louis Bolk Institute, as coordinator,supports these with on-farm monitoring and sharingresults from international research.By working in participatory collectives, innovationsdevelop and are put into practice rapidly. The result hasbeen significant reductions, sometimes elimination, ofpesticide use in the crops next to the field margins.Bucegi Mountains Brânză de Burduf cheese is themost valuable among Romanian cheeses. A Presidium ofthe Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity was establishedto help safeguard this ancient cheese, and the way of lifeand the environment it helps to sustain.Made only in summer, droving shepherds collectheritage sheep breeds from local farmers and take themup to the high mountain passes. Here they process the rawmilk, keeping some cheese and some lambs as payment.However, this traditional herding and production practicewas under threat from social and economic pressuresand overly rigid application of EU regulations. With theparticipation of producers, the Slow Food Presidium drewup a production protocol that was recognised by theauthorities. This assures the authenticity and traditionsof the cheese making, and that it meets legal standards.This has allowed the cheese to find new markets andhas brought higher profits, helping to sustain both themountain pastures and the local culture.The regular meetings of the Presidium producers havehelped to bring them all together, to cooperate and toshare knowledge. Not only this, the exposure to the widerSlow Food movement and the higher profile generallyhas interested the younger generation who are beginningto value the heritage that they previously shunned.Innovative structures that have helped producers to helpthemselves are now giving new life to the mountains andtheir inhabitants.Sustainability Training for Organic Advisors(STOAS) believes that farm development should primarilybe achieved by motivating farmers and enhancingtheir skills (production techniques, entrepreneurship)rather than by regulations and labels. Thus farm advisorscan have a prominent role to play in further increasingthe sustainability of organic farming. The EU’s LifelongLearning Programme funded eight European organicassociations in the STOAS project to develop two trainingcourses for advisors. These included using some recentlydeveloped tools to evaluate the overall sustainability oforganic farms. By helping farmers to come to grips withsustainability goals and their own objectives, the advisorscan motivate farmers to go beyond the minimum organiccriteria.The MAIE project (Multifunctional Agriculturein Europe) recognises the wider role that agricultureneeds to, and can, play. Funded by the Lifelong LearningProgramme it explored models for social farming:integrating education, therapy and rehabilitation, and alsoproviding the farm with additional income and labour.The project aimed to promote social farming, producetraining materials to assist farmers wanting to engage insocial farming, and generally to provide support towardsfurther development.FECD (Fondo Ecuatoriano de Cooperación parael Desarrollo) in Ecuador believes that agroecology isnot only a matter of (technical) knowledge, but needs tobe complemented with shared values and environmentalawareness. The programmes of this NGO help farmersin building respectful relationships with the family, thecommunity and the environment. Farmers developnew attitudes and start to plan farming activities morecarefully. This has resulted in higher productivity and hasgenerated alternative agricultural technologies.

131.3.3 ResearchBy definition, research should be innovative, as it probesthe unknown to find answers. Of course it has to followwell-defined protocols to ensure rigour and objectivity.Sometimes however, the protocols and other ‘standardpractice’ can get in the way of innovation in researchtechniques and of exploring new approaches. As organicand agroecology have a more holistic perspective, thisencourages not only a different attitude, but also differentmethodologies, and indeed sometimes different objectives,all providing opportunities for innovation.The Duchy Originals Future Farming Programmeis truly farmer-led and seamlessly combines extension andresearch. Whilst the funding and coordination are external,the research topics are put forward by farmers, with theaim of finding low-cost sustainable answers to farmingproblems. In addition to these research projects, ‘field labs’are held on already-innovating farms so that participants,both organic and non-organic, can share best practice,learn how to run their own trials and review progress overseveral meetings.The Flemish Research & Knowledge Network forOrganic Food and Farming brings together severalnetworks of farmers, researchers and other stakeholders tocoordinate needs-oriented research, facilitate participatoryknowledge exchange for innovation, and also disseminateresearch results using a variety of means to reach allstakeholders. It also integrates both extension and research,with farmers at the centre of the structure.The SOLIBAM project (Strategies for Organic andLow-input Integrated Breeding and Management) istaking an almost contrary approach to seed breeding. Itrecognises that in-crop diversity is actually a strength ratherthan a weakness for crop health, giving better resilienceto stress in fluctuating environmental conditions. It hasdeveloped participatory plant breeding and managementstrategies using diverse germplasm and involving allrelevant stakeholders. So innovative is this approach thatit is coming into conflict with the current (and proposed)seed laws.Increasing specialisation of farms clearly reducesbiodiversity and increases the risks associated with higherand more uniform population densities. It also makescycling of nutrients more difficult. The CANTOGETHERproject (Crops & Animals Together) is working to designinnovative and viable mixed farming systems that improvesustainability at both the farm and regional levels.1.3.4 EducationIt is quite normal for part of agricultural education to befield based, for example out on the college farm, and forstudents to take placements away on commercial farms.This is clearly important for learning practical skills andgaining basic farming experience. Important as this is, itis generally more physical than intellectual, and thereforedoes not engage the enquiring mind or stimulate deeperlearning. Nor does it help those farmers beyond a bit ofextra (and cheaper) labour.Innovations in learning are addressing these deficiencies,both enhancing the learning experience for students andgiving real benefit to the farmers and food businessesthemselves.The Knowledge and Innovation Network forOrganic Food and Farming in Berlin-Brandenburgis run by Eberswalde University for SustainableDevelopment. It consists of a range of professionallyfacilitated innovation projects addressing the needs ofsingle or groups of businesses in the food and farmingsector with student involvement as part of their learning.The students are therefore experiencing, and solving, reallife challenges, but also support local farms and businesses.Phenomenon-based, experiential and just-in-timelearning are several methods that are being employedat the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. It takesthe students out to the farm to be fully immersed inthe phenomenon itself. Here, students learn from theexperience of the farmers themselves and come to valuethem as much as academics and books.Experiential learning has been enhanced by using openendedcases, i.e. putting the students with the farmer orbusiness client and the teacher to look at a real life problem.Finding solutions necessitates study of the associatedcontext and conditions and stimulates both visionarythinking and finding more practical actions – qualitylearning for the students and real assistance to the client.

15INTRODUCTIONEXAMPLES OF LEARNING ANDINNOVATION IN ORGANIC ANDAGROECOLOGICAL FARMINGJust-in-time learning means scheduling learning ofmodules for when the information is needed. At thistime it begins to have context and the students, seeingthe relevance and indeed applying it immediately, willabsorb it better.Learning and innovation in organic and agroecologicalfarming happen through the whole farming system andfood chain, in rural society generally. There are numerousand inspiring examples. The quality of innovation theydemonstrate and their sheer variety are testament, notonly to the ingenuity and boldness of those involved,but also to the creativity and open mindedness fosteredby agroecological and organic approaches.It is through these examples that we set out ablueprint for learning and innovation in organic andagroecological farming. This chapter will cover 13examples of innovative methodologies for learning,stakeholder participation, research and innovation.These examples have been introduced and put intocontext in chapter 1.

162.1CONTACT:GEOFFROY RAOUTG.RAOUT@NATUREETPROGRES.ORGEVA TORREMOCHAEVATORREMOCHA@HOTMAIL.COMWEBSITE:WWW.NATUREETPROGRES.ORGTHE PARTICIPATORY GUARANTEE SYSTEMOF NATURE & PROGRÈS (FRANCE)Before organic standards were officially recognisedby governments, many organic associations establishedtheir own, private certification scheme. When Nature &Progrès developed its scheme in the 1970’s it chose for aParticipatory Guarantee System (PGS). Nature & Progrèssees organic farming as a process in which producersand consumers work together to continuously improvemethods and techniques. Certification is considered atool rather than an aim by itself. It is just one step in thatprocess to meet, exchange knowledge and support eachother. In PGS the certification process is an opportunityfor farmers to get to know other farms, to discoverother farming methods, and to exchange experienceswith peers that work in the same region with the sameagronomic and socio-economic problems.Forty years later, the standards of Nature & Progrès arestill defined collectively by all members. In this regard,the charter of Nature & Progrès serves as a doublereference. On the one hand it clearly defines the goalsof the organisation and all its member and assures theseare respected. On the other hand, it is the reference forassessing which improvements have been obtainedand which is the way to go.stimulate further development along the principlesof the Nature & Progrès charter.• Meetings of the “Joint Commissions for Agreementand Control” (COMACs). The COMACs are in chargeof the collective evaluation of the inspectionreports. These local commissions issue an adviceon the granting of the Nature & Progrès certificate.In addition, they propose recommendations,corrections and/or sanctions in order to improvethe farm management.• Final approval from the national federation. Atthe national level a committee composed ofrepresentatives from the local COMACs takes thefinal decision on the granting of the label. Thesame body also ensures the coherence and wellfunctioning of the whole organisation.The PGS of Nature & Progrès is organised at threelevels:• On-farm visits by experienced inspectorsaccompanied by volunteers. The inspections arecarried out in full transparency. They are meant tocontrol compliance with the standards as well as to

2.217CONTACT:SALVATORE BASILEBIODISTRETTO@AIAB.ITWEBSITES:WWW.BIODISTRETTO.ITWWW.BIODISTRETTO.NETBIO-DISTRICTS:THE ORGANIC APPROACH TORURAL DEVELOPMENT (ITALY)The Cilento bio-district, in the Campania Region in SouthernItaly, was launched in 2009 by AIAB (Italian Association forOrganic Agriculture). A bio-district is a geographical area whereall stakeholders (farmers, consumers, public authorities, researchand training centres, industry, tourist operators and associations)enter into an agreement for the sustainable management oflocal resources. This creates a strong local network reinforcedby local policies oriented towards the protection of theenvironment, traditions and local knowledge.In bio-districts, the promotion of organic produce isinextricably linked with the promotion of the land and itsspecial characteristics so that together they can fully realise theireconomic, social and cultural potential. This benefits tourismand the local economy, all based on the respect and protectionof local resources.About 400 local organic farmers (23% of the region’s organicfarms) promoted the creation of the bio-district, and they arethe major stakeholders. By joining the Bio-district Pact, theyguarantee that their produce is typical of the area, organic andGMO-free.Thirty-two municipalities are involved in the Cilento biodistrict,providing information and promotion, nutritioneducation in schools, and activating organic canteens and othergreen purchase initiatives. The Province and the CampaniaRegion also provide funds and direct their own programmes.Many other municipalities in the district, impressed by theresults, have applied to join the initiative. AIAB Campania is theoverall coordinator responsible for managing it.organic markets were inaugurated. Since then, the bio-districthas created a network of 20 restaurants and 10 seaside resorts(bio-beaches), committed to promoting the produce of farmsand farming associations. The bio-beaches have exceeded allexpectations, with territorial marketing initiatives and standspromoting local organic food. As a further promotion of ecotourism,a number of bio-routes have been set up that take infarms, bio-towns, organic state-owned land, environmentalsites linking inland rural areas and coastal tourist areas.Many enterprises, driven by the increasing demand forlocal goods, have presented structural modernisation projectsto the Campania Region, to improve production, promotediversification or protect the environment. All bio-district actorsparticipate in a round table to identify sources of available fundsfor annually programmed activities.Results are very positive: Demand for organic productsis growing; supply chains have shortened; more farms arebecoming multifunctional and converting to organic; moreenvironment protection initiatives are in place; and tourist flowsare increasing throughout the year and not just in the summermonths.Towards a European and internationalnetwork of biodistrictsHaving seen the economic, environmental and social impactof the Cilento Bio-district, AIAB is actively engaged in promotingand coordinating bio-districts in other areas of the country. Biodistrictshave already been set up in the Calabria, Lazio, Tuscany,Liguria, Piemonte, Trentino-Alto Adige, Molise and Marcheregions.At the international level, efforts are made to establish anetwork of bio-districts and similar types of projects. Morespecifically, the Cilento Bio-district has recently signed acollaboration agreement with Biovallée in France.In July 2009, with the participation of the local authorities,the bio-district’s first ethical purchasing groups and several

182.3CONTACT:MERIJN BOSM.BOS@LOUISBOLK.NLWEBSITE:WWW.BLOEIENDBEDRIJF.NLFLOURISHING FARM: PARTICIPATORYINNOVATIONS IN AGRICULTURE AND NATURECONSERVATION (THE NETHERLANDS)Biodiversity plays key roles in sustainable agriculture.Within the collaborative project “Bloeiend Bedrijf”(“Flourishing Farm”), hundreds of farmers are workingtogether to increase beneficial biodiversity and collaboratewith scientists in developing flower-rich field margins fornatural enemies (beneficial insects) of crop pests. They aresupported by local organisations for agricultural landscapeand nature management, nationally coordinated by theLouis Bolk Institute and Veelzijdig Boerenland, and regionallyby over 30 organisations. The farmers have created over1200 kilometres of flowering field margins in 2013, and thenumber of participating farmers has grown from 300 in2011 to over 570 in 2013.Bloeiend Bedrijf is an example of participatoryinnovations in operational groups. In close interactions,farmers and scientists implement scientific knowledge intoinnovations for sustainable crop protection. The Louis BolkInstitute provides expertise and support, and organizesfield demonstrations and field group discussions togetherwith organisations for agricultural landscape and naturemanagement. The project has support from the Dutchministry of Economic Affairs and the European AgriculturalFund for Rural Development until 2015.Efficient knowledge exchange leadingto participatory innovationsFrom 2011 to 2013, more than 200 field meetings wereorganized throughout the growing season, drawingmany hundreds of interested farmers. The main objectiveis to exchange knowledge and experiences – about howto create and manage wild flower field margins, how toidentify and increase beneficial biodiversity, and how totranslate that into sustainable agricultural practice.“Flourishing Farm” is strongly participative: innovationsare developed as a result of interactions between farmersand scientists. First, farmers acquire new knowledge duringthe many field demonstrations and discussion groups. Theystudy and discuss beneficial biodiversity and the possibilitiesfor more sustainable use of insecticides. The Louis BolkInstitute also shares results from international scientificresearch. Second, based on their own knowledge andobservations they start practicing with more sustainablecrop protection. Third, these are followed by groupevaluations that allow them to exchange experienceswith colleagues and scientists. The Louis Bolk Institute alsoconducts on-farm monitoring of beneficial biodiversityand management practices. Finally, the results are used inannual feedback to the farmers.Measurable resultsBy working in participatory collectives, innovationsdevelop rapidly. Because farmers participate in theinnovations, it is more likely that these are applied andindeed result in more sustainable practice. In 2012 67% ofthe participating potato and cereal growers reduced theirinsecticide use in the crops adjacent to the flower-rich fieldmargins. 40% did not even use any insecticide in the cropsalong the flower-rich margins.

2.419CONTACT:MICHELE RUMIZM.RUMIZ@SLOWFOOD.ITWEBSITE:WWW.SLOWFOODFOUNDATION.COM/PRESIDIASLOW FOOD FOUNDATION FOR BIODIVERSITY- BUCEGI MOUNTAINS BRÂNZA DE BURDUF(ROMANIA)In the high Bucegi Mountains in Transylvania, drovingshepherds still make a living as cheesemakers. At thebeginning of summer the herders collect sheep oflocal breeds from local farmers and herd their flocks tomountain dairies. Here they process the raw milk and, inreturn for this service, keep part of the cheese and severallambs.This seasonal tradition to produce Brânză de Burduf,which is matured in fir tree bark, is still commonlypracticed. Despite being the most valuable of Romaniancheeses, an overly rigid application of Europeanhygiene regulations was putting traditional herding andproduction techniques at risk.The Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity aims tosustain quality production at risk of extinction, protectunique regions and ecosystems, recover traditionalprocessing methods, and safeguard native breeds andplant varieties. It creates a Presidium to define a specificproduct, its region, the people who may produce it,and the specific production techniques. It encouragesinnovation by local producers and sharing of knowledge.A Presidium for Brânză de Burduf was formed withalso the producers as members. It drew up a productionprotocol which all producers sign. This preserves thetraditional production techniques and guaranteesthe authenticity of the cheese whilst also ensuringconsistent high quality. Later it helped to build a sharedfacility for further processing and ageing of the cheese.An important and innovative initiative is now underwayto ensure that the first processing phase, which takesplace in the individual mountain dairies, meets hygieneregulation standards.The Presidium producers meet three times a year tomake decisions about promotion and issues relatingto production. They are acquiring a greater familiaritywith the national and international market, buildingup a network of contacts and learning the best way topresent their product. This has brought higher profits,encouraging the producers to maintain the mountainpastures and safeguard the cheese, which is a symbol ofthe local culture. They are currently working to register ashared brand.Herding is of little interest to younger generations, beingconsidered an inferior, old-fashioned activity. But now thePresidium coordinator, who is also a cheesemaker, is 32and other young people are becoming interested in theproject.The Presidium is helping to improve production andspread knowledge about the area and the product.It plays an essential role in maintaining the culture ofmountain cheesemaking and preserving the landscapeand the biodiversity of the pastures, including the twolocal sheep breeds.

202.5CONTACT:BRAM MOESKOPSBRAM.MOESKOPS@IFOAM-EU.ORGWEBSITE:WWW.STOAS-PROJECT.EUSUSTAINABILITY TRAINING FOR ORGANICADVISORS (STOAS)The STOAS partners consider organic agriculture as a developmentprocess of ever increasing sustainability. In this, farm advisers havea prominent role to play. By helping farmers to come to grips withsustainability goals and their own objectives, they can motivatefarmers to go beyond the minimum organic criteria and to enhancetheir production and entrepreneurial skills in pursuit of increasing thesustainability of their farms.The STOAS project, funded by the EU’s Leonardo da Vinci’sprogramme (part of the Lifelong Learning Programme), has involvedthe partner organisations in developing the concept and use ofsustainability assessment tools and providing curricula for trainingworkshops. The workshops introduced organic farm advisers and otherprofessional stakeholders to these tools and provided practical trainingon sustainability to those working with farmers.Three Sustainability Assessment Tools: RISE, FASTand Bioland ToolOriginally developed at the Swiss College of Agriculture, Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE) was commissioned by theWorld Bank to assess the sustainability of farms in the tropics. TheResearch Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL) has produced a versionfor organic farms under temperate conditions. It is both scientificallysound yet practical for use on-farm. Based on an extensive interviewwith the farmer, the RISE model calculates 68 sustainability parametersand summarises them in 10 indicators. The results are presented in aneasy-to-read ‘cobweb’ diagram.The Farm Sustainability Assessment Tool (FAST) was developed by theOrganic Research Centre. Its aim is to provide a simple, measurable andaccessible way to show 11 public good indicators that result from thefarming systems and management. As with the RISE-tool, the results ofthe assessment are presented in a cobweb diagram that can quickly beunderstood by the land manager.The Bioland Tool aims to raise awareness about the Bioland principlesof organic farming among the members of the Bioland Association. Theassessment consists of a 3-hour farm visit and interview with the landmanager. From the seven Bioland principles, two or three are chosenthat are of particular relevance to the farm. Compliance to the chosenprinciples is assessed in detail and based on this a set of goals andrecommendations are formulated.Two courses: each of two x two-day workshops,spread over 6 monthsCourse 1 is for executive staff of farmers’ associations and experiencedadvisers. Its aim is to enable organisation managers to be betterinformed generally about sustainable farming principles and practicesand the assessment tools available and to be able to develop policyand/or advisory or other services.Course 2 is for practising advisers or inspectors working with farmersand aims to integrate sustainability as the guiding principle of theservice they offer. They learn how to use the sustainability assessmenttools and explore practical measures which they can use to advisefarmers in becoming more sustainable across all aspects of their farms.The STOAS partners promote an alternative way for increasing thesustainability of the organic sector, namely by motivating farmersthrough advice, training and offering information. Rather than providingready solutions, they stimulate farmers to find solutions themselves. Thisis a dynamic, more progressive approach, and leads to more diversityand more satisfaction. Farmers take responsibility and get involved.They also develop a deeper understanding of all aspects of their farm:social, financial and governance as well as environmental.

2.621CONTACT:MARIKA KRÜGERM.KRUEGER@OEKOHERZ.DEWEBSITE:HTTP://MAIE-PROJECT.EUMULTIFUNCTIONAL AGRICULTURE IN EUROPE- SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS ONORGANIC FARMS (MAIE)Agriculture is no longer solely about the process of foodproduction. Farming can be augmented by a variety ofdifferent activities, including the active marketing of farmproduce, added value processing, eco-tourism, culturalopportunities, (preventative) environmental conservation,health and healing services and social and educationalactivities. Agriculture thus becomes multifunctional.Social farming is one field of multifunctional agriculture thatincludes: looking after people’s health and healing; integratingeducation and therapy objectives; and undertaking a role inrehabilitation and social reintegration.Social farming encompasses agricultural cooperatives andmarket gardens and also school and kindergarten farms. Theaim is to provide a service to certain sections of society suchas people with physical disabilities or learning difficulties, thelong-term unemployed, addicts, the socially disadvantaged,people with severe mental illness, offenders, children andyoung people with behavioural and/or learning difficultiesand the elderly. These people participate in the daily routineof the farm, for example gardening, cultivating the fieldsor animal husbandry. Through providing a safe, positiveenvironment caring for living things, this results in healing,learning, inclusion and a better quality of life (WitzenhausenPosition Paper on the Added Value of Social Farming).The project “Multifunctional Agriculture in Europe - socialand ecological impacts on organic farms” was funded by theLifelong Learning programme. It brought together playersfrom education, agriculture, consumer advice and publicrelations from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal, theNetherlands, Finland and Germany with the following goals:• Raising the awareness about the importance andpotential of social farming• Supporting networks and cooperatives in rural areas• Developing training material for farmers• Improving rural structures through alternativeemployment models and sources of income frommultifunctional agricultureThe project started with a bottom-up, participatory analysisof the target group (farmers and trainers in the health, socialwork and justice sectors) to identify their needs. Then nationalFocus Groups with representatives of different sectors(professionals from agriculture, social, health care, justice andeducation) were formed to support the partners during theproject.The project analysed the state-of-the-art in the socialfarming sector to gather all existing information, tools,materials and projects. This was the basis for developing amultilingual vocational training curriculum for farmers whowish to integrate social programmes into their agriculturalenterprise. It has been developed in accordance with theEuropean Credit System for Vocational Education and Training(ECVET) which is recognised throughout Europe.The final step of the project was the creation of competencecentres for social farming in every country taking part in theproject plus a virtual competence centre at internationallevel. Several project partners are now implementing thecurriculum. For example, the curriculum will be offered atuniversities in Bulgaria and Czech Republic. In Germany anadvanced training for farmers and social workers has beendeveloped by the farmers association Thüringer Ökoherze.V. and the University of Erfurt. Also in Portugal and Italy thecurriculum will be used to train farmers and other peopleinterested in social farming.

222.7CONTACT:WILLIAM HERNÁNDEZWHERNAND@FECD.ORG.ECWEBSITES:WWW.FECD.ORG.ECWWW.FOCUSING.ECAGROECOLOGICAL VALUES AS BASIS FORDEVELOPMENT (FECD, ECUADOR)Funded by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) and other donors, FondoEcuatoriano de Cooperación para el Desarrollo (FECD)works to improve in a sustainable manner the livingconditions of the most vulnerable groups in Ecuador.The work of FECD is based on a method called thepause. The underlying principle of the pause is than oneshould learn to listen to oneself in order to be able tolisten to others. Attentive listening generates respectfulrelationships with the family, the community and theenvironment. The farmers participating in this learningprocess discovered different ways of relating to the soil,water, vegetables and animals.How this process has resulted in a culture ofagroecology was illustrated by the reaction of coffeegrowers to a break-out of rust. Instead of using theagrochemical package offered by the government,they chose to sacrifice one or two harvests and plantednew more resistant varieties. This is an example ofhow agroecology is not only a matter of (technical)knowledge, but needs to be complemented withshared values and environmental awareness.The pause methodology has reduced levels ofviolence in families and farmer cooperatives. Farmershave learnt to plan their activities more thoughtfully. Thishas resulted in higher productivity and has generatedalternative agricultural technologies adding value totheir products.

2.823CONTACT:JOHANNA PAGETJPAGET@SOILASSOCIATION.ORGWEBSITE:WWW.SOILASSOCIATION.ORG/FIELDLABSDUCHY ORIGINALS FUTURE FARMINGPROGRAMME (UNITED KINGDOM)The Duchy Originals Future Farming Programme focuses on low-cost,sustainable answers to farming problems using farmer-led, participativeapproaches. It aims to boost innovation in organic and non-organic farmingand helps farmers to produce healthier food in ways that are better for theenvironment and farm animals. The programme not only benefits farmers,but helps identify research priorities for researchers and scientists creatingintegrated ways of thinking from field to lab. This unique programme aimsto inspire mainstream research funders in the UK to try practical, farmer-ledapproaches that give farmers a real say in the research that is done in theirname.Launched in April 2012, the programme is delivered by the Soil Association,in partnership with the Organic Research Centre and funded by the Princeof Wales’s Charitable Foundation and Duchy Originals from Waitrose. Anindependent steering group of scientists and farmers from within andoutside the organic movement gives critical scrutiny.Field labsAt the heart of the programme are field labs. They bring like-mindedfarmers together to discuss problems, create trials and test solutions thatcould be applied in a practical environment. The same group of farmersmeets two to four times through the season on farms that are already triallingnew techniques, to monitor progress and discuss alternative approaches.So far 450 farmers have taken part in field labs and there are more than 30planned for 2014.One of the current field labs is looking at improving soil organic matterlevels on arable and vegetable growing farms using green manures.Alongside the importance of maintaining soil fertility the farmers involvedare also conscious of rising chemical inputs costs and are interested inreplacing these with green manures and still maintaining good crop yields.This field lab aims to give the farmers and growers involved the knowledgeand confidence to grow green manure crops and to evaluate the benefitsthis can give to their farm in terms of improving soil structure and fertility andlowering their cropping costs.Another field lab addressed the issue of antibiotics in dairy cows. This fieldlab gave the group valuable insights into herd management and, by the lastmeeting, the average infection indicators had fallen significantly. Not onlydid those attending the field lab benefit from the discussions, but they haveestablished a useful network forum.Farmer led research fundAnother key element of the programme is an innovative research fundfocussed on farmer’s needs. The fund supports research into innovativeand sustainable solutions that rely on management or renewable options.Alongside four initial projects selected in the first year of the programme,funding for another three innovative research projects was announced inMarch, 2014.The projects have been devised to practically and innovatively addressa number of important issues facing farmers. The research topics weresuggested by farmers, working with scientists. The projects tackle a numberof challenges for organic and low-input agriculture including managingweeds without herbicides and finding affordable protein feed for poultry.Innovation AwardThe Innovation Award was launched in July 2013. This new award, inassociation with Nesta, celebrates outstanding innovators in farming andgrowing across the UK. It recognises the achievement of individuals, teams,companies or organisations, which are pioneering practical new approachesto farming and growing, achieving real benefits for people, the planet oranimal welfare and promoting sustainable agriculture in line with organicprinciples.

242.9CONTACTS:LIEVE DE COCK (NOBL)LIEVE.DECOCK@ILVO.VLAANDEREN.BEWWW.NOBL.BECARMEN LANDUYT (CCBT)CARMEN.LANDUYT@CCBT.BEWWW.CCBT.BEAN JAMART (BIOBEDRIJFSNETWERKEN)AN.JAMART@BIOFORUMVL.BEWWW.BIOFORUMVL.BEFLEMISH RESEARCH & KNOWLEDGENETWORK FOR ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING(BELGIUM)In 2012, three networks in Flanders supportingresearch and knowledge exchange for organic farming(NOBL, CCBT and BBN) decided to work together inone research and knowledge network for organicfood and farming. This new network, called the FORKnetwork,aims to maximise the benefits of cooperationwith complementary activities, multidisciplinarycompetencies, exchanging capacities and avoidingduplicate efforts.Biobedrijfsnetwerken (BBN) brings together organicfarmers of the same subsector (poultry, dairy cattle,beef cattle, vegetables & arable crops, goats, berries andgreenhouse crops) meeting regularly for the exchangeof technical knowledge and experiences, often theresult of informal research on their own farm.The Coordination Centre of Applied Research onOrganic Farming (CCBT) coordinates and stimulatesresearch and extension on organic farming in sixapplied research centres. The CCBT launches small-scaleresearch projects financed by the Flemish Government.Farmers are involved in determining the topics of theseresearch projects.The FORK-Network works on three levels:1. Needs-oriented research – ensuring research iswell aligned to the needs of the sector, in eithersmall scale practical research projects (CCBT) ormore profound research (NOBL), and definingthe organic research strategy and agenda inFlanders.2. Participatory knowledge exchange for innovation– building on the synergy between the differentactors and enhancing the applicability ofresearch by stimulating participatory projects.3. Disseminating research results to reach allrelevant stakeholders, using reports, databases,newsletters, field trips, meetings, includingcooperating with The Netherlands through thejoint knowledge platform www.biokennis.org.The Network for Research in Organic Foodand Farming (NOBL) brings together researchers,policymakers, farmers and consumer organisationsto share knowledge, ideas and experiences and toformulate advice on priority research topics and theorganisation of research for organic food and farming inFlanders.

2.1025CONTACTS:VÉRONIQUE CHABLEVERONIQUE.CHABLE@RENNES.INRA.FRRICCARDO BOCCIR.BOCCI@AIAB.ITWEBSITEWWW.SOLIBAM.EUSTRATEGIES FOR ORGANIC AND LOW-INPUTINTEGRATED BREEDING AND MANAGEMENT(SOLIBAM)Funded by the EU’s 7th Framework Programme forResearch and Development, the SOLIBAM project isdeveloping new breeding approaches and managementpractices. The project’s underlying hypothesis regardingseed breeding for organic and low-input systems is thatdiverse populations are more resilient to stress and cantherefore better adapt to fluctuating environmentalconditions.SOLIBAM designs, develops and tests innovative arableand vegetable cropping systems based on high levelsof agrobiodiversity. Field trials across environments areevaluating the behaviour of crops that contain differentlevels of diversity. New populations and varieties arebeing developed through innovative methods. A seriesof cereal, legume and vegetable crops are tested indifferent agroecological conditions in Europe and sub-Saharan Africa to provide models for various climatesand breeding approaches.A large part of the project is dedicated to developingparticipatory plant breeding and management (PPBM)strategies specific to marginal areas or small-scaleagriculture in Europe and Africa. It is based on:• using diverse germplasm (e.g. locally adaptedvarieties, old landraces, mixtures, new populations);• involving all the relevant stakeholders, includingend-users and consumers;• assessment by farmers to ensure that crops are ‘fitfor purpose’ on-farm;• testing in different case studies across countries;• reviewing methodologies to identify bestapproaches, efficient procedures and effectiveevolution of diversity and performance within agiven agroecological context.The SOLIBAM project involves a large numberof academic institutions, farmer associations andcommercial seed companies, coming from 12 countries,representing many different regions from the North ofEurope to Africa. Trans-disciplinary thinking is central tothe success of SOLIBAM.

262.11CONTACT:AURÉLIE FAUREINFO@FP7CANTOGETHER.EUWEBSITE:WWW.FP7CANTOGETHER.EUCROPS & ANIMALS TOGETHER(CANTOGETHER)European agriculture has become increasingly specialisedwith large distances between areas of crop production andareas of animal production, mainly because of economicdrivers. This has resulted in a number of problems, amongthem:• High synthetic fertiliser use;• Less recycling of nutrients in manure but overfertilizationof fields in areas with intensive livestockproduction;• Decline in biodiversity due to the specialisation of cropand animal production and low crop diversity;• Increase in transport costs to bring the crops for feedto the livestock.The CANTOGETHER project is working to designinnovative and sustainable mixed farming systems thatovercome these challenges and aims to demonstrate therelevance of combining crops and animals to increasesustainability of farms and regions. The project startedin January 2012 and is supported by the 7th FrameworkProgramme. 28 organisations (both research and small tomedium sized companies) across 10 European countries(France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom,Sweden, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy) are involved.The project incorporates six steps, using iterative cycles ofdesign, assessment and adjustment for ongoing validationand improvement of the systems being tested:1. Identify new combinations of agronomic andlivestock practices at farm, district and landscapelevel that will focus on optimizing the use of energy,carbon and nutrient flows by rural communities;2. Design innovative mixed farming systems fordifferent European contexts which combine food(animal and plant), feed and energy production(from biomass and animal wastes) throughdiversified land use;3. Test innovative combinations of practices andmixed farming systems at farm and territorial levelusing a network of 24 case studies across Europe;4. Assess the environmental, economic and socialviability of the most promising innovative mixedsystems at farm and territorial levels across Europe;5. Identify farm business, farmers’ preference, foodsupply and legislation related issues influencingthe implementation of innovative mixed farmingsystems;6. Disseminate innovations to key stakeholdersthrough a participatory framework.Sustainable agriculture tocounterbalance the current drivers ofspecializationBy combining systems of crop and animal production atboth farm scale and district scale, CANTOGETHER optimizesenergy, carbon and nutrient flows, conserves naturalresources, improves biodiversity and landscape diversity, andpromotes production and the use of manure as a fertiliser. Italso produces economic benefits, for example:• Improve the volume of home-grown feed to reducereliance on imports and the problems of price volatility;• Increase the volume of legumes produced locally anddecrease reliance on e.g. imported soybeans;• Improve the exchange of goods between feedproducers and organic manure producers;• Reduce transport costs.Overall, CANTOGETHER will increase sustainability andcompetitiveness of European agriculture contributing toincrease food security and environmental quality.

2.1227CONTACT:ANNA HÄRINGANNA.HAERING@HNEE.DEWEBSITE:WWW.HNEE.DEKNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION NETWORKFOR ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING ATEBERSWALDE UNIVERSITY FOR SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT (GERMANY)Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development(HNEE) started to facilitate an organic food and farmingknowledge and innovation network in 2004. It combineseducation of students (through solving real worldchallenges) and innovation projects for businesses. Thevision was to foster a trans-disciplinary network that closesthe gap between food and farming businesses, advisoryservices, agricultural research and university studies as wellas administrative and policy bodies. Within a few years, thisnetwork has become a knowledge facilitating institutionfostering sustainability, competitiveness and resilience ofagricultural farms in the State of Brandenburg, and also aninnovative learning platform for the students.A bottom-up multi-stakeholderprocess by innovation brokerageThe partners in the network are farmers, representativesof regional and national agricultural organisations, andthe scientists and students at HNEE. A bottom-up multistakeholderprocess, driven by an innovation broker,facilitates to formulate the needs for innovation of individualbusinesses and of the organic sector or the region as a whole.The network facilitator then identifies – together with relevantstakeholders – the most appropriate format of cooperation:students projects at different levels of expertise, graduationtheses, business internships, or cooperation within largerinnovation or research projects that rely on external fundingand are relevant to a larger group of stakeholders.In addition to the student related projects, networkactivities have also inspired businesses to jointly work oncooperative projects, for example “production specificinnovation groups”. These contribute to the network througha structured and professionally facilitated knowledgeexchange among farmers and between researcher, advisorsand farmers. For example, farm adaptation strategiesto climate change have been developed for selectedagricultural sites in Brandenburg, looking at alternative croprotation and soil cultivation techniques. The groups also focuson strategic farm development to foster competitivenessand resilience of typical farming systems. Examples includedirect marketing, crop, beef or sheep farming systems.Farmers and experts together develop and analyse farmdevelopment strategies focusing on current challenges suchas the changing policy environment or rising costs.This unique approach receives very positive feedback fromthe involved practitioners. About 80 % of student projectson individual innovation needs of businesses are evaluatedvery positively. In addition, experience indicates that some30% of cooperation partners express new innovation needsimmediately after finishing a cooperation project, and about50% of cooperation partners come back with new ideaswithin a year. New farmers become aware of and join thenetwork every year. An analysis of a sample of 253 graduationtheses at Bachelor and Master level showed that more than50 % of these projects focus on regional innovation needs,while approximately 25 % focus on specific innovation needsof individual businesses, so contributing significantly to theinnovation processes in the network.To work effectively in the real world, it is essentialthat graduates have the knowledge, skills, and aptitude

282.13CONTACTS:GEIR LIEBLEINGEIR.LIEBLEIN@NMBU.NOCHARLES FRANCISCHARLES.FRANCIS@NMBU.NOWEBSITE:WWW.NMBU.NO/EN/STUDIES/STUDY-OPTIONS/MASTER/MASTER_OF_SCIENCE_IN_AGROECOLOGYPHENOMENON-BASED, EXPERIENTIAL ANDJUST-IN-TIME LEARNING AT THE NORWEGIANUNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCESto identify and deal with a wide range of challengesat the farm and community levels. Innovative learningintegrates experience and reflection. The best way ofdoing this it to enable the students to use the “world outthere” as their classroom, where they can meet farmers,business people and consumers, and can engage withtheir problems and visions and help to improve theirsituations.The approach demonstrates that learning fromthe experience of farmers and other extra-universitystakeholders are valued as equally important as readingscientific and theoretical articles and book chapters.Recognizing multiple sources of knowledge is key tobecome competent to work constructively with farmingand food systems as complex and dynamic entities.Phenomenon-based Learning onFarms and in CommunitiesRather than beginning in the classroom with theoryand facts about farming and food systems, studentsstart out on the farm with the farmer, with the studentsfully immersed in the phenomenon itself (Østergaardet al., 2010; Francis et al., 2012; Lieblein et al., 2012). Aparallel learning situation in the food system is achievedby placing students in rural communities in Norway andhaving them begin by interviewing key stakeholderssuch as processors, marketers, food providers in schoolsand public agencies, and consumers. Further, theybegin the semester’s immersion on the farm and in thecommunity conceptually at the level of practice.Experiential Learning using OpenendedCase Studies and VisionaryThinkingDecision case studies have long been a staplecomponent of practical learning, originating over acentury ago in business, law, and medical colleges.The conventional decision case deals with a real-worldsituation that has been studied and resolved, and thusthe instructor is familiar with the outcome. In this course,much more excitement has been generated amongstudents by using open-ended cases that deal withcontemporary issues that are not yet resolved (Franciset al., 2009). Instead of seeking the ‘correct answer’, thestudents cooperate with clients who are facing difficultdecisions, and as a team the students/clients/teacherssearch together for a series of action steps that couldlead to a more viable and socially acceptable solution.The students are envisioning a desired future that couldbe pursued by the clients or stakeholders in the field.This method fully involves students in the study oflocal context, including natural resources, economicmeans, and human capital of current systems. Bypracticing visionary thinking together with extrauniversitystakeholders, the students are able to imaginealternatives that may not appear feasible in the shortterm but could be a part of an improved future situationif they can assist clients in looking ‘outside the box’,beyond present constraints, and imagine a desirableset of positive steps toward the future. The visions thatare developed serve the purpose of providing directionfor the action steps to be taken in the present situation.

29Through this process the students, and stakeholders insociety, are not only learning from past experiences butthey are also learning from the future.Just-in-time Learning Based onThoughtful Scheduling of LearningActivitiesIn pursuing an undergraduate curriculum withspecific hurdles to cross at certain phases of study,many students put off some topics because they do notappreciate any immediate relevance to their personalgoals. One prime example is introductory chemistry, aclass that some students delay from their suggested firstyearprogramme until much later, even until the thirdyear of study. When asked, students respond that therelevance is not obvious, that there is need for contextand application. When they have been at the universityfor a couple of years, then the need for more basicinformation to understand mechanisms and systemcomponent performance becomes more evident. In this‘just-in-time’ learning environment, students can stepback to take a course or do a detailed literature reviewor web search to pick up the principles of chemistrythat previously did not seem very important to them(Salomonsson et al., 2005; Lieblein et al., 2007).

3003

31THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH,INNOVATION AND LEARNING IN THEAGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECTOR3.1.INTRODUCTIONOver the years that the EU has invested in agriculturalresearch, the amount devoted specifically to organicsystems has slowly but progressively increased. Itwas not until the 1990s that the first EU projects onorganic farming were funded. Before that, privateresearch institutes were the primary drivers, with thefirst universities including organic agriculture in theircurricula in the 1980s.The 3rd Framework Programme for Research andDevelopment (1990-1994) funded the first EU projectson organic farming. Seven projects received a totalbudget of almost €3.7 million. In the 7th FrameworkProgramme (2007-2013) the budget for organic researchincreased to €38 million. However, this accounted onlyfor a mere 2.3% of the total €1.66 billion budget foragriculture (excluding ERA-Net funding). In other words,organic research still pales into insignificance, it is noteven in proportion to the 5.6% of EU agricultural landfarmed organically.and farming system. However, the organic sector doesemphatically need a dedicated research programmegiven its specific standards and challenges.Whilst organic and agroecological farmers strive tocombine high environmental standards with high overallproduction, productivity and quality have in somecases been inadequate. Organic farmers can achievehigher productivity by more efficient use of naturalresources, improved nutrient recycling techniques, andagroecological methods for supporting health of soils,crops and livestock. Conventional research programmesgenerally do not address these farming techniques.Moreover, the agricultural supply industries havelittle interest in organic and agroecological farming, asthey mostly cannot profit from these low external inputsystems. Their substantial research and developmentexpenditure is directed elsewhere and is seldom relevantto organic systems. Organic farmers are therefore muchmore “on their own”; this self-reliance is one reason whythey tend to be so innovative.3.2.Nevertheless, the EU is an increasingly importantinvestor in organic research, and hence in thedevelopment of the sector. Therefore, an understandingof the different EU instruments for research & innovationpolicy and how to influence them is essential.THE NEED FOR ORGANIC ANDAGROECOLOGICAL RESEARCHAND INNOVATIONIt need hardly be said that research and innovationare crucial for the development of the organic andagroecological food & farming sector. Of course, manyscientific findings are generally valid for the whole foodThe organic food processing industry also has specificresearch requirements. Consumers expect organic foodto be minimally processed: the “natural quality” of theproducts should be maintained. However, there are fewprocessing techniques that are specifically developedfor organic foods. Organic consumers also expect higherstandards of environmental performance, such as waterand energy efficiency, and less pollution and waste.Organic systems do deliver these, but further researchand innovation could improve results significantly.Finally, organic and agroecological values give riseto specific questions in socio-economic research, suchas the role of (organic/agroecological) farming in theempowerment of rural areas, and the promotion ofhealthy and sustainable diets.

323.3. OVERVIEW OF THE EU RESEARCH 3.4.AND INNOVATION FRAMEWORKInnovation is now at the heart of the EU research anddevelopment agenda, aimed at achieving “smart, sustainableand inclusive growth and jobs”. Being smart, the variousinstruments have been designed to complement and workwith each other.HORIZON 2020The Horizon 2020 programme consists of three mainparts: (1) Excellent Science, (2) Industrial Leadershipand (3) Societal Challenges. For each of these parts, theCommission will publish work programmes with theactions to be financed, the amount allocated to eachaction and indicative timetables.Most important is Horizon 2020, the EU’s FrameworkProgramme for Research and Innovation for 2014-2020, thefollow-up of the 7th Framework Programme (FP7). It is seenas a means to produce “world-class science, tackle societalchallenges and take great ideas from the lab to the market”. Itis the EU’s primary funding source for research.The Rural Development Regulation (2nd pillar of the CAP)also prioritises innovation. The main instrument for this is theEuropean Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivityand Sustainability (EIP-AGRI). Its aim is to create synergiesbetween Horizon 2020 and Rural Development and to closethe gap between research and practice.A number of structures allow individual member statesto pool national research funds, including for (organic)agriculture. These include ERA-Nets (European Research AreaNetworks) and JPIs (Joint Programming Initiatives).Then, there are also structures that facilitate Europe-widecollaboration between research, training, commercial andnon-commercial organisations. These include Knowledgeand Innovation Communities (KICs) which are funded withinHorizon 2020, and European Technology Platforms (such as TPOrganics) which are independently funded.Whilst not being specifically targeted at any one sector, theErasmus+ Programme offers opportunities for innovation anddeveloping new modes of learning, including in the area oforganic and agroecological farming.Finally, there is the EU Organic Action Plan. The ambitionof the Action Plan is to support the growth of the sector inview of the forthcoming changes in the legislative framework.Research and innovation are included as one important areain this.The following sections will explain these differentinstruments in more detail and where the opportunities arefor organic and agroecological initiatives.The Excellent Science programme aims at supportingworld-leading scientists and developing future andemerging technologies and research infrastructures.The Industrial Leadership programme should help makeEurope a more attractive location to invest in research andinnovation. Biotechnology research will be funded underthis programme, as well as a public-private partnership forthe bio-based industries (bio-fuels, bio-plastics, etc.).Of more importance for the agricultural sector arethe Societal Challenges, in particular Societal Challenge2: “Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry,marine and maritime and inland water research andthe bio-economy”. It will receive 5% of the total Horizon2020 budget which amounts to €3.85 billion. This meansthe budget for the research areas covered by SocietalChallenge 2 has doubled compared to the previous EUframework programme for research (FP7).Two key points are also worth highlighting in Horizon2020:1. Both Horizon 2020 and the EIP-AGRI attach greatimportance to the multi-actor approach, to ensure“more demand-driven innovation through thegenuine and sufficient involvement of variousactors (end-users such as farmers/farmers’ groups,fishers/fisher’s groups, advisors, enterprises, etc.)all along the project: from the participation in theplanning of work and experiments, their executionup until the dissemination of results and the possibledemonstration phase”. 2 This accords well with theparticipative approach that is common organic andagroecological practice.2. The legal texts of Horizon 2020 explicitly statethat organic agriculture should benefit from theprogramme. This is the first time legal texts ofEU research policy recognise organic farming.2 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-food_en.pdf

33Societal Challenge 2The first work programme of Societal Challenge 2 waspublished in December 2013 for projects in 2014 and 2015.It features two types of projects that contribute to the EIP-AGRI: multi-actor projects and thematic networks.Multi-actor projects must involve stakeholdersthroughout the project (e.g. including farmers, advisors,consumers, NGOs and society at large) and need to betargeted to the needs and problems of end-users, being alsocomplementary with existing research.Thematic networks map the state-of-the-art of existingscientific knowledge & best practices for the theme inquestion. The aim is to develop accessible end-user materialthat will facilitate exchange of knowledge, and also generatea better targeted research agenda. They should also involveall concerned stakeholders (researchers, farmers, advisors,enterprises, education actors, NGOs, administration,regulatory bodies…).Organic OpportunitiesGiven its history of strong collaboration across disciplinesand between researchers and producers, the multi-actorapproach taken in Horizon 2020 offers great opportunity forthe organic sector. Indeed, there is a good record of organicand agroecological oriented projects receiving funding inprevious research rounds when they are well constructedand well targeted. Among many examples are SOLIBAM andCantogether, both described in chapter 2.Several multi-actor projects called for in December 2013make specific reference to organic agriculture, e.g. thecalls on “soil quality and function”, “genetic resources andagricultural diversity”, and “sustainable food chains throughpublic policies”. More are expected in 2015.Organic researchers, farmers and businesses need toorganise themselves in order to take part in multi-actorprojects or thematic networks. Consortia applying forHorizon 2020 projects should be composed of at least threepartners from at least three countries.3.5.RURAL DEVELOPMENTREGULATION ANDEIP-AGRISupport for innovation is a key priority in the RuralDevelopment regulation for 2014-2020. Innovation isincluded in the list of priorities, as well as in the list ofcross-cutting objectives to which all priorities for RuralDevelopment must contribute. As a result the new RuralDevelopment regulation makes addressing innovationalmost fundamental, and the main driver is the EuropeanInnovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity andSustainability (EIP-AGRI).The Rural Development regulation specifies that theEIP-AGRI shall promote an “agricultural sector workingtowards agroecological production systems”. It linksup with two other priorities of the Rural Developmentregulation, namely “restoring and preserving ecosystems”and “promoting resource efficiency and supporting theshift towards a low carbon economy”. The regulation listsorganic farming and the establishment of agroforestrysystems as measures contributing to these two priorities.What is significant about the EIP-AGRI is that it tries tomarry productivity and sustainability: “It contributes toensuring a steady supply of food, feed and biomaterials,developing its work in harmony with the essential naturalresources on which farming depends.” 3Strategic Implementation PlanThe EIP-AGRI is guided by the Strategic ImplementationPlan 4 , adopted in July 2013 by its High-Level SteeringBoard. Co-chaired by Commissioners Cioloș (Agriculture& Rural Development) and Geoghegan-Quinn (Research& Innovation), this board is composed of a wide range ofstakeholders, including IFOAM EU and ARC 2020.The Strategic Implementation Plan explicitly mentionsthat efforts for improving productivity must go hand inhand with sustainable consumption. It calls for innovativesolutions for the delivery of public goods, the sustainableuse of genetic resources and improvement of soilfertility. It also broadens the concept of innovation fromtechnological to include social.3 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/4 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/pdf/strategicimplementation-plan_en.pdf

34The Plan balances the interests of both conventionalagriculture and alternative approaches such as organicfarming or agroecology. It is therefore important fororganisations favouring the latter to now get active andensure that authorities, both at EU and national (regional)level, take account of the Strategic Implementation Planwhen programming the EIP-AGRI.Another statement in the Plan is that the diversity ofapproaches in the food & farming sector means there isno “one size fits all” solution for promoting innovation. Adiversity in project size is therefore needed. This meansthat the Commission should ensure that smaller institutes,companies or associations also have a fair chance of makingsuccessful bids in Horizon 2020.Operational GroupsA key objective of the EIP-AGRI is to build bridges betweenresearch and farming practice. It encourages actors from thedifferent parts of the agri-food system – farmers, businesses,researchers and advisers - to share ideas and experiencesand so develop innovative solutions or make research resultsready for application. To this end it follows “the interactiveinnovation model which focuses on forming partnerships -using bottom-up approaches and linking farmers, advisors,researchers, businesses, and other actors in OperationalGroups”. 5This objective is similar to the multi-actor projects inHorizon 2020. However, the difference is that an OperationalGroup will normally apply to a Rural Developmentprogramme region, whereas research projects are crossborderand more EU-level. Therefore, just as EU MemberStates and regions decide the objectives and the contentof their Rural Development programmes, they also play acrucial role in supporting Operational Groups.Operational Groups should tackle practical problems– they are not discussion groups – so should be gearedto developing new products, practices, processes ortechnologies. This could involve pilot projects and mayrelate to specific geographical or environmental contexts.They may also be combined with other rural developmentmeasures, such as knowledge transfer and informationactivities, advisory services, farm/business development orproducer groups.5 http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/documents/eipopportunities_en.htmThe Rural Development regulation makes provisionto support brokerage activities needed for setting upOperational Groups and preparing project proposals, as wellas for the project itself and costs of cooperation. Investmentsin physical assets for an Operational Group will also benefitfrom increased support.The EIP-AGRI Service PointThe Commission has established a Service Point for theEIP-AGRI to act as a mediator to enhance communicationand cooperation between all innovation actors involved,especially between different projects and across borders.One of its main tasks is providing support for focusgroups. The focus groups involve experts (researchers andpractitioners) willing to share their knowledge and promotethe practical application of innovative solutions within aspecific area. The EIP-AGRI website can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/.Focus Group on Organic Farming(optimising arable yields)The Focus Group on optimising arable yields in organicfarming was one of the first three to be formed. TheFocus Group brought together 20 experts with differentbackgrounds and experiences (scientists, farmers, advisors…)to provide solutions for reducing the “yield gap” (the gapbetween the best and least performing organic farms andthe gap between conventional and organic farming forparticular crops). The aim is to raise the performance ofless productive organic farms to the level of “best organicpractices”. Five main causes for yield gaps were identified:• poor soil fertility management;• inadequate nutrients supply;• insufficient weed management;• pest and disease pressure insufficiently managed;• and variety of choice.The focus group collected practical solutions already inplace and made proposals for topics for research projectsand Operational Groups. It also made recommendationsfor setting-up Operational Groups in terms of methodology.It concluded there is no standard solution for this. On thecontrary, the activities of Operational Groups should alwaysbe adapted to the agronomic, social and environmentalcontext. The role of the facilitator is highly significant in this.The Focus Group also found it important for OperationalGroups to give rapid answers to the farmers.

353.6.This allows to receive feedback and plan next steps, butmore importantly it builds trust and commitment. Finally,the Operational Group recommended to establish anEU-wide network of knowledge centres that collects andfacilitates the use of scientific and practical knowledge thatis now so dispersed.Organic OpportunitiesThe Rural Development regulation promotes innovationand investments contributing to environment or climatechange objectives, including organic farming. As a result,the EIP-AGRI is a key instrument for the organic sector. Agood example of a current Rural Development-fundedproject is Flourishing Farm, described in chapter 2.Other projects, like the Duchy Originals Future FarmProgramme and Slow Food’s Presidium for Brânză deBurduf would seem to be suitable for Rural Developmentfunding, e.g. as Operational Groups. However, it is theresponsibility of member states to set their own RuralDevelopment programmes, so organic associations andallies need to convince their national or regional authoritiesto support Operational Groups that foster organic andagroecological solutions.TRANSNATIONALCOOPERATIONNotwithstanding the EU’s big investments in research,the majority of research funds are still managed by MemberStates. The EU aims at creating more coherence betweenEU and national research policies by supporting MemberStates that pool national budgets.The European Research Area (ERA) is the EU’s “singlemarket” equivalent for research and innovation, with theaim of enabling free circulation of researchers, scientificknowledge and technology. Started in 2000, its researchprogrammes integrate the scientific resources of the EUthrough multinational cooperation. This increases thecompetitiveness of European research institutions andencourages a more inclusive way of working.Two relevant instruments within the ERA are:• ERA-Nets – cooperation and coordination of national/regional research activities; and• Joint Programming – agreement between a numberof member states for a strategic research agenda toaddress a major societal challenge.Below are a number of examples of such co-operationwith significance for organic and agroecologicalapproaches.ERA-Net Core OrganicCore Organic 6 (Coordination of European TransnationalResearch in Organic Food and Farming Systems) is aconsortium of 24 partners from 20 countries. Now in itsthird iteration (CORE Organic I, II and now Plus), it is the onlytransnational funding structure dealing 100% with organicresearch. Its aim is to gather into a critical mass the oftensmall and scattered organic research community, to deliverbetter research more efficiently.The most recent call has been launched in the first weekof December 2013. It features four themes:1. plant/soil interaction,2. functional biodiversity to improve management ofpests, diseases and weed,3. livestock health management systems includingbreeding, and4. ensuring quality and safety of organic food along theprocessing chain.As an “ERA-Net Plus” call, the European Commissionprovides co-funding. Together with the national funds, thetotal budget of the call amounts to €10 million.ERA-Net SUSFOODERA-Net SUSFOOD 7 consists of 25 partners from 16countries. It deals with sustainability of the food chainbeyond the farm gate. The first SUSFOOD call waslaunched in February 2013 and had a value of € 10 million.The second SUSFOOD call was launched in February 2014and had a value of almost € 7.4 million.It is important that the organic sector engages withSUSFOOD, for example to advocate for the maintenanceof the “natural” quality in food processing or to stress theimportance of adopting sustainable food habits.6 www.coreorganic.org7 www.susfood-era.net

37innovation goals for organic and low-input agriculture andpromote these towards policy makers.programmes and is intended to be easier to access than itspredecessor.3.8.In July 2013, TP Organics achieved its goal of beingrecognised by the Commission as a European TechnologyPlatform (ETP). This means it now has an official advisory rolein the implementation of Horizon 2020.KIC Food4Future – Sustainable SupplyChain from Resources to ConsumersThe European Institute of Innovation and Technology(EIT) is responsible for creating Knowledge and InnovationCommunities (KICs) based on the need to enhance Europe’sability to innovate, by “adapting quickly to the fast pace ofdevelopment, being one step ahead in providing solutionsto rapidly emerging societal problems and developingproducts that meet the demands and desires of consumers”. 14With the convergence of problems facing agriculture andthe food industry (increasing and more affluent population,climate change etc.), the EIT has identified this area as asuitable candidate for a KIC. Accordingly, a call for the KICFood4Future is being prepared for launching in 2016.Foodbest, a European consortium with the support ofmany large food companies and research and advisoryinstitutions, is working on a bid for this proposed KIC. Theaim is to “promote innovation and entrepreneurship in foodacross Europe to address societal food challenges” and to“develop healthy, safe and appealing foods for a growingworld population in a competitive and sustainable way”. 15Organic OpportunitiesAs ever, the buzzwords “healthy”, “safe” and “sustainable” areat the core of this initiative. Organic companies and institutesneed to get involved to ensure its core is indeed healthy, safeand sustainable.EDUCATION ANDTRAINING – ERASMUS+PROGRAMMEThe Lifelong Learning Programme has now ceased butits activities in 2014-2020 continue under the Erasmus+Programme 16 , with a 40% increase in budget (almost € 15billion over the seven years). It brings together seven existing14 http://eit.europa.eu/about-us/15 http://www.foodbest.eu16 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/Erasmus+ will provide opportunities for over four millionEuropeans to study, train, gain work experience and volunteerabroad. It will also support transnational partnershipsamong education, training, and youth organisations to fostercooperation and bridge the worlds of Education and work.The European Commission’s Education, Audiovisual andCulture Executive Agency is responsible for implementingthe centralised Actions of the Programme. At local, regionaland national level, national agencies are responsible, andact as the link between the European Commission andparticipating organisations.Erasmus+ contains three Key Actions: (1) Learningmobility of individuals, (2) Cooperation for innovation andthe exchange of good practices and (3) Support for policyreform. Whilst not being specifically targeted at any onesector, Key Action 2 offers opportunities for agroecologicalinnovation and developing new modes of learning in(organic) farming.Key Action 2 – Cooperation for innovationand the exchange of good practicesWithin it, the most relevant actions are StrategicPartnerships, Knowledge Alliances and Sector SkillAlliances. Key Action 2 is allocated at least 28% of theoverall budget and calls for proposals are made annually. Theexpectation is to facilitate:• 25,000 Strategic Partnerships involving 125,000institutions/organisations in joint initiativespromoting exchange of experience and know-howand links with the world of work;• Nearly 300 Knowledge Alliances and Sector SkillsAlliances, involving 3,500 education institutions andenterprises working together.Strategic PartnershipsStrategic Partnerships aim to support the development,transfer and/or implementation of innovative practices atorganisational right up to European levels. They have tobe transnational, involving at least three organisationsfrom three different countries. They can range fromsimple cooperation between small organisations tosophisticated and large-scale projects and can be in allfields of education, training and youth.

40Finally, the examples of agroecological innovation in this publicationshowed that a lot of organic and agroecological knowledge is alreadyavailable. Several initiatives exist at national or regional level that bring theknowledge held by various actors together (e.g. Duchy Originals FutureFarming Programme in UK, Flemish Research & Knowledge Network forOrganic Food and Farming or the Knowledge and the Innovation Networkfor Organic Food and Farming run by Eberswalde University in Brandenburg).There is however no platform that brings all this knowledge available inthe Member States together at EU level. Such a platform is highly neededespecially because the diversity of agroecological and organic practicesand knowledge, and the fact that this knowledge and practices are oftenlocation-specific, pose additional challenges to their exchange. The platformshould be established as part of the EIP-AGRI. It should bring together theorganic knowledge centres, advisory services and innovation brokers in anEU-wide network as was also recommended by the final report of the FocusGroup on Organic Farming.SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: EIP-AGRIThe Strategic Implementation Plan managed fairly successfully tobalance the interests of conventional agriculture against alternativeapproaches, such as organic farming or agroecology. More efforts shouldbe done to promote it. The Commission’s desk officers evaluating the RuralDevelopment programmes of the Member States should be more aware ofthe recommendations of the Plan. The Directorate-Generals for Research &Innovation and for Agriculture & Rural Development should take these intoaccount when drafting the next Work Programmes of Horizon 2020.The Focus Group on Organic Farming was a welcome initiative. Bringingtogether experts with different backgrounds (scientists, farmers, advisers…)proved to be a successful approach and has resulted in many usefulrecommendations. These should be taken account of when planning futureOperational Groups and Horizon 2020 calls.New Focus Groups on themes relevant for organic and agroecologicalfarming should be set up. A possible theme is pest and disease control inorganic viticulture and fruit production. These perennial systems dependmuch on a few essential plant protection agents. The reduction of thisdependency would be a very important step towards their long-termviability.Until now, Focus Groups have not or only very little dealt with social andorganisational innovation. New modes of cooperation and changes ofbehaviour are however necessary to achieve sustainable food & farmingsystems. Possible themes of social innovation are generational renewalin agriculture (supporting young and new farmers) and the promotion ofsustainable, diverse and healthy diets.SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: EUORGANIC ACTION PLANThe EU Organic Action Plan has made a good assessment of the researchneeds of the organic food and farming sector, in particular with regardto the possible phasing out of several exceptions and derogations. TheCommission should now show ambition in the implementation of theAction Plan. For example, a large-scale research programme should be setup in order to allow the organic sector to adapt to the new rules and live upto the highest sustainability standards. Participation of the organic sector inHorizon 2020 and EIP-AGRI should be promoted and a follow-up of the ERA-Net CORE Organic should be established.RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ORGANICAND AGROECOLOGICAL FOOD &FARMING SECTOR:There are various policy instruments for supporting innovation fromregional to EU level: Operational Groups (Rural Development programmes),multi-actor projects or thematic networks (Horizon 2020) and strategicpartnerships (Erasmus+). Organic researchers, farmers and businessesneed to organise themselves in order to take part in them. The numerousexamples of innovation given in this publication can serve as inspiration.LAST WORDThis publication started by saying the world is changing and everyoneinvolved in agriculture needs to adapt and innovate in order to ensurecontinued productivity and success. We have seen that organic andagroecological approaches to farming are, by definition, innovative andhave much to offer: not only the production systems are innovative andsustainable, but similarly also are the models of development, organisationand research.We have seen that the European institutions have embraced innovationand it is now at the centre of European policy. Never before has thepolicy environment for agriculture been so favourably disposed towardsagroecological farming, not only innovation, but also the sustainabilityagenda. If all actors – from farmers and enterprises, through associations,institutions and researchers, right up to policy makers and the authorities– can nurture and exploit these positive conditions with cooperation andmutual respect, then innovation can truly spark and we have a chance tomeet the huge challenges that Europe and the World, and all its peoples,face.

41REFERENCESEU sources• EIP-AGRI website: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/index_en.htm• Strategic Implementation Plan of the EIP-AGRI (July 2013):http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/pdf/strategic-implementation-plan_en.pdf• Fact sheet EIP-AGRI Service Point: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/pdf/fact-sheet-service-point_en.pdf• Recommendation and outputs of the Focus Group Organic Farming (Optimising Arable Yields): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/focus-groups/organic-farming/201404_en.pdf• Website Horizon 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/• Fact sheet Horizon 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eip/pdf/fact-sheet-horizon-2020_en.pdf• Rural Development Regulation (Reg. No. 1305/2013): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0487:0548:en:PDF• First report of the SCAR-AKIS working group (2012): http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/scar/pdf/akis_web.pdf• Second report of the SCAR-AKIS working group (2013): http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/agriculturalknowledge-innovation-systems-towards-2020_en.pdf• Website Erasmus+: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/• Website of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology: http://eit.europa.eu/• EU Organic Action Plan: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/documents/eu-policy/european-action-plan/act_en.pdfWebsites ERA-Nets and JPIs• ERA-Net Core Organic: www.coreorganic.org• ERA-Net SUSFOOD: www.susfood-era.net• SUSFOOD Strategic Research Agenda:• https://www.susfood-era.net/lw_resource/datapool/_items/item_176/sra-final_website.pdf• ARIMNet: http://www.arimnet.net• ICT-AGRI: http://ict-agri.eu• ANIHWA: http://www.anihwa.eu• C-IPM: http://c-ipm.org• FACCE-JPI: www.faccejpi.com• FACCE-JPI Strategic Research Agenda:• https://www.faccejpi.com/internet6_national_faccejpi/Strategic-Research-AgendaWebsites of projects and organisations mentioned in the publication• Nature & Progrès (France): http://www.natureetprogres.org• Bio-districts (Italy): http://www.biodistretto.it - http:// www.biodistretto.net• Flourishing Farm (the Netherlands): http://www.bloeiendbedrijf.nl• Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity: http://www.slowfoodfoundation.com/presidia• Sustainability Training for Organic Advisors (STOAS): http://www.stoas-project.eu• Multifunctional Agriculture in Europe - Social and Ecological Impacts on Organic Farms (MAIE): http://maie-project.eu• FECD (Ecuador): http://www.fecd.org.ec - http://www.focusing.ec• Duchy Originals Future Farming Programme (United Kingdom): http://www.soilassociation.org/fieldlabs• Flemish research & knowledge network for organic food and farming (Belgium): http://www.nobl.be - http://www.ccbt.be -http://www.bioforumvl.be• Strategies for Organic and Low-input Integrated Breeding and Management (SOLIBAM): http://www.solibam.eu• Crops & Animals Together (CANTOGETHER): http://www.fp7cantogether.eu/• Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development (Germany): http://www.hnee.de/• Norwegian University of Life Sciences: http://www.nmbu.no/en/studies/study-options/master/master_of_science_in_agroecology• Foodbest Consortium: http://foodbest.eu/Literature cited• Aichner R, Hormel R, Neubauer DWR (2000) Ansatzpunkte für eine integrierte Produkt- und Prozessinnovation: Kreativ.Mutig. Unermüdlich. Integrierte Produkt- und Prozess-Innovation im KMU. Bildungswerk der Thüringer Wirtschaft e.V. andHampp Verlag, München and Mering.• Altieri AM (1983) Agroecology, the Scientific Basis for Alternative Agriculture. Berkeley, U.C., Berkeley.• Bellon S, Lamine C, Ollivier G , de Abreu LS (2011) The relationships between organic farming and agroecology. 3rd ISOFARScientific Conference - 17th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Gyeonggi Paldang, 2011. Organic is Life. Knowledge fortomorrow: proceedings. ISOFAR, Bonn, p. 235-238.• EU SCAR (2012) Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition – a reflection paper. European Commission,Brussels, 117 pp.• EU SCAR (2013) Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems towards 2020 – an orientation paper on linking innovationand research. European Commission, Brussels, 204 pp.• Francis C, Breland TA, Østergaard E,. Lieblein G, Morse S (2012) Phenomenon-based learning in agroecology: a prerequisitefor transdisciplinarity and responsible action. Journal of Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems 37: 60-75.

42• Francis C, King J, Lieblein G, Breland TA, Salomonsson L, Sriskandarajah N, Porter P, Wiedenhoeft M (2009) Open-ended casesin agroecology: farming and food systems in the Nordic Region and the U.S. Midwest. Journal of Agricultural Education &Extension 15:385-400.• Francis C, Lieblein G, Gliessman S, Breland TA, Creamer N, Harwood R, Salomonsson L, Helenius J, Rickerl D, Salvador R,Wiedenhoeft M, Simmons S, Allen ., Altieri M, Flora C, Poincelot R (2003) Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. Journalof Sustainable Agriculture 22: 99 – 118.• Holt-Giménez (2006) Campesino a Campesino: Voices from the Farmer-to-Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture inLatin America. Food First, Oakland, 300 pp.• Klerkx L, Leeuwis C (2009) Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels:insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76: 849-860.• Knickel K, Tisenkopfs T, Peter S (Eds.) (2009) Innovation processes in agriculture and rural development. Results of a crossnationalanalysis of the situation in seven countries, research gaps and recommendations. Final report on the IN-SIGHTproject: Strengthening Innovation Processes for Growth and Development, 169 pp.• Li Y, Vanhaverbeke W, Schoenmakers W (2008) Exploration and exploitation in innovation: reframing the interpretation.Creativity and Innovation Management 17: 107-126.• Lieblein G, Breland TA, Francis C, Østergaard E(2012) Agroecology education: action-oriented learning and research. Journalof Agricultural Education and Extension 18: 27-40.• Lieblein G, Breland TA, Salomonsson L, Østergaard E, Francis C (2007) Educational perspectives in agroecology: steps on adual learning ladder toward responsible action. NACTA Journal 51, March: 37–44.• Machín Sosa B et al. (2010) Revolución agroecológica: el movimiento de campesino a campesino de la ANAP en Cuba.Cuando el campesino ve, hace fe. ANAP, Havana and La Vía Campesina, Jakarta. Available at: http://www.viacampesina.org/downloads/pdf/sp/2010-04-14-rev-agro.pdf [Accessed June 2014]• Maier F (2001) Innovationen. In: Wenniger (Ed.) Lexikon der Psychologie. Frankfurt a. M.• Meißner D (2001) Wissens- und Technologietransfer in nationalen Innovationssystemen. Dissertation. Technische UniversitätDresden, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Dresden.• Østergaard E, Lieblein G, Breland TA, Francis C (2010) Students learning agroecology: phenomenon-based education forresponsible action. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 16: 23-37.• Padel S, Niggli U, Pearce B, Schlüter M, Schmid O, Cuoco E; Willer H, Huber M, Halberg N, Micheloni C (2010) ImplementationAction Plan for Organic Food and Farming Research. TP Organics, Brussels and Forschungsinstitut für biologischeLandwirtschaft (FIBL), Frick.• Röling NG, Engel PGH (1991) IT from a knowledge system perspective: concepts and issues. Paper presented at theEuropean Seminar on Knowledge Management and Information Technology, Wageningen.• Salomonsson L, Francis CA, Lieblein G., Furugren B (2005) Just in Time Education. NACTA Journal 49, December :5-13.• Schumpeter J, Salin E, Preiswerk S (1980) Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie. 5. Aufl.: Francke (Uni Taschenbücher,172), München.• Smits RE, Kuhlmann S, Shapira P (2010) The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy –An International Research Handbook,Edgar Elgar.• Stassart PM, Baret P, Grégoire V J-C, Hance T, Mormont M, Reheul D, Vanloqueren G, Visser M (2012) Trajectoire et potentielde l’agroécologie, pour une transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables. In: Vandam D, Streith M, Nizet J, Stassart PM(Eds.) Agroécologie, entre pratiques et sciences sociales. Educagri, Dijon.• Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C (2009) Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review.Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29: 503-515.• Witzenhausen Position Paper on the Added Value of Social Farming (2008) SoFar project. Avaialble at: www.sofar-d.de/files/?636&de [Accessed June 2014]Other TP Organics publications• Vision for an Organic Food and Farming Research Agenda to 2025 (2008):http://www.tporganics.eu/upload/TPOrganics_VisionResearchAgenda.pdf• Strategic Research Agenda for Organic Food and Farming (2009):http://www.tporganics.eu/upload/tporganics_strategicresearchagenda.pdf• Implementation Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming Research (2010):http://www.tporganics.eu/upload/TPOrganics_ImplementationActionPlan.pdf• Agro-ecology: ten examples of successful innovation in agriculture (2012, in collaboration with IFOAM EU and ARC 2020):http://agro-ecoinnovation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Eco_Innovation_broch_24pages_ENG_lr.pdf• The European Innovation Partnership: Opportunities for innovation in organic farming and agroecology (2014, incollaboration with IFOAM EU and ARC 2020):http://www.tporganics.eu/upload/EIP_dossier_EN.pdf

MEMBERS OF TP ORGANICSUmbrella organisations and international networksAgriBioMediteranneowww.ifoam.org/en/regional-activities/ifoamagribiomediterraneoAÖLwww.aoel.orgInternational Research Association for OrganicFood Quality and Health (FQH)www.fqhresearch.orgECOLOGICAwww.ecologica.mobiEuropean Organic Certifiers Council (EOCC)www.eocc.nuEuro Coopwww.eurocoop.orgEurogroup for Animalswww.eurogroupforanimals.Euromontanawww.euromontana.orgEuropean Council of Young Farmers (CEJA)www.ceja.euGENETwww.genet-info.orgI BirdLife Europewww.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asiaEuropean Environmental Bureau (EEB)www.eeb.orgEuropean Trade Unions Federation of Food,Agriculture and Tourism (EFFAT)www.effat.orgFriends of the Earth Europewww.foeeurope.orgFondation Sciences Citoyenneswww.sciencescitoyennes.orgIFOAM EUwww.ifoam-eu.orgISOFARwww.isofar.orgFédération Européenne du Cheval de Trait pourla promotion de son Utilisationwww.fectu.orgwww.copa-cogeca.beCOPA-COGECAGreenpeace-EU Unitwww.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/enPesticide Action Network-Europewww.pan-europe.infoEURAF - European Agroforestry Federationwww.agroforestry.euDanube Soyawww.donausoja.orgIDEASSwww.ideassonline.orgILSLEDAwww.ilsleda.orgAPRODEVwww.aprodev.euEuropean Coordination Via Campesinawww.eurovia.orgRegional Rural Development Standing WorkingGroup of South Eastern Europewww.seerural.orgELO European Landowners Organizationwww.europeanlandowners.org

44National Technology PlatformsPT Bio: Italian Platform for Organic Food and Farming (IT)www.ptbioitalia.itNOBL: Network for Organic Food and Farming Research (BE)www.nobl.beBionext (Netherlands)www.bionext.nlPlataforma Tecnologica Agroecologica (Spain)www.agroecologia.net/pt-agroecologicaCzech Technology Platform for Organic Agriculture (CzechRepublic)www.ctpez.czNational Technology Platforms in the processof being set upMegalakult az Ökológiai Gazdálkodási Nemzeti TechnológiaiPlatform (Hungary)Financial supportersRogau StiftungRogau Stiftungwww.rogau-stiftung.orgEkhagastiftelsenwww.ekhagastiftelsen.seSoftware AG – Stiftungwww.software-ag-stiftung.deFondation de Francewww.fondationdefrance.orgThis publication is co-financed by the European Community,Directorate-General for the Environment. The sole responsibility for thiscommunication lies with the IFOAM EU Group. The European Commissionis not responsible for any use that may be made of the informationprovided.

45Supporting members:Aarhus Universitywww.au.dkSwedish University ofAgricultural Scienceswww.slu.seBioforskww.bioforsk.noUNIVPMwww.univpm.itBokuwww.boku.ac.atKassel Universitätwww.uni-kassel.deFiBLwww.fibl.orgCzech Technology Platformfor Organic Agriculturewww.ctpez.czEesti Maaülikooliwww.emu.eeRHEAwww.rhea-environment.orgFQHwww.fqhresearch.orgBionextwww.bionext.nlHNE Eberswaldewww.hnee.deIFOAM EUwww.ifoam-eu.orgNOBLwww.nobl.beLouis Bolk Institutewww.louisbolk.orgAgro-ecosystems HistoryLaboratorywww.historiambiental.orgThünen Institutewww.ti.bund.de/enCIHEAM IAM - Bariwww.iamb.itGal terre di Murgiawww.galterredimurgia.itDTUwww.dtu.dkFIRABwww.firab.itMTT Agrifood ResearchFinlandwww.mtt.fiCNRwww.cnr.it

46Active enterprise membersAGRANO (DE)www.agrano.deAGROCARBON (HU)www.3ragrocarbon.comALINTEC (IT)www.alintec.itALLOS (DE)www.allos.deARIZA (NL)www.ariza.nlBRIO (IT)www.briospa.comCOATO (ES)www.coato.comLa Colombaia (IT)www.lacolombaia.itComprobio (IT)www.comprobio.netFREILAND-PUTEN (DE)www.freiland-puten.deLEBENSBAUM (DE)www.lebensbaum.deEuCRF European Centre for Research & Financing(IL)www.eu-crf.netVOX NET (IT)www.voxnet.itMANDALA (BE)www.mandalaorganicgrowers.comMARKISCHES LANDBROT (DE)www.landbrot.deBIOLAND MARKT (DE)www.bioland-markt.deÖKOLAND (DE)www.oekoland.dePRAUM (DE)www.praum-zwieback.deSIRE (IT)www.sirericevimenti.itSOMMER & CO (DE)www.sommer-biscuits.deTEGUT (DE)www.tegut.comWIESENGOLD (DE)ORGANIC FARMA ZDROWIA (PL)www.organicmarket.plCULINAR (LV)www.culinar.lvNEUMARKTER LAMMSBRAU (DE)www.lammsbraeu.deNational cooperation partnersPortugalFranceUKBelgiumTurkeyGermanyGermanyCIMO - Centro de Investigação de Montanha(Mountain Research Center)www.cimo.esa.ipb.ptGRAB - Groupe de Recherche pour l’AgricultureBiologiquewww.grab.frSoil Associationwww.soilassociation.orgInterdisciplinary Group of Research inAgroecology (GIRAF)www.agroecologie.beBugday Associationwww.bugdayglobal.orgVerband der Landwirtschafts-kammerwww.landwirtschaftskammern.deSchweisfurth Stiftungwww.schweisfurth.de

PUBLISHED BYTP ORGANICSRUE DU COMMERCE 1241000 BRUSSELSBELGIUMPHONE: +32 2 280 6844EMAIL: INFO@TPORGANICS.EUWEBSITE: WWW.TPORGANICS.EUIN COOPERATION WITHIFOAM EU GROUPARC2020EuropeanTechnology PlatformSupported byThis publication is co-financed by the European Community,Directorate-General for the Environment. The sole responsibilityfor this communication lies with the IFOAM EU Group. TheEuropean Commission is not responsible for any use that maybe made of the information provided.