IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v21y2022i1p50-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who are Advisory Services Leaving Out? A Critical Reflection on ‘Hard to Reach’ Farmers

Author

Listed:
  • Pierre Labarthe
  • Lee‐Ann Sutherland
  • Catherine Laurent
  • Geneviève Nguyen
  • Talis Tisenkopfs
  • Pierre Triboulet
  • Noemie Bechtet
  • Ellen Bulten
  • Boelie Elzen
  • Lívia Madureira
  • Christina Noble
  • Jaroslav Prazan
  • Leanne Townsend
  • Eleni Zarokosta
  • Katrin Prager
  • Mark Redman

Abstract

Although the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union has broadened its objectives to integrate social issues, several hard‐to‐reach groups of farmers and workers continue to be ignored by advisory services and associated policies. Connecting with these groups has a strong potential to increase the economic and social cohesion of European agricultures. We interviewed over 1,000 farmers across Europe and identified features of these groups that are often overlooked by advisory services. We critically reflected on the social cohorts omitted from advisory services and how they could be better reached; they include farm labourers, new entrants or ‘career changers’, and later adopters. We clarify the different types of advisors in the advisory landscape, distinguishing between those who are linked to or independent from sales of inputs or technologies. We make concrete recommendations about how to engage advisors with hard‐to‐reach groups, with approaches suited to different national contexts of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS); thus contributing to the ‘AKIS dimension of National Strategic Plans of the next Common Agricultural Policy, 2023–2027. We argue for the more effective use of advances in the social sciences through a better understanding of advice as social interaction which can bolster the inclusiveness of public policies. Bien que la Politique agricole commune de l’Union européenne ait élargi ses objectifs pour intégrer les questions sociales, plusieurs groupes d’agriculteurs et de travailleurs continuent d’être ignorés par les services de conseil et les politiques associées. Établir un lien avec ces groupes difficiles d’accès pourrait permettre d’accroître la cohésion économique et sociale des agricultures européennes. Nous avons interrogé plus de 1,000 agriculteurs à travers l’Europe et identifié les caractéristiques de groupes qui sont souvent ignorés par les services de conseil. Nous avons examiné de manière critique les cohortes sociales concernées et réfléchi à la manière de mieux les accompagner. Elles comprennent les ouvriers agricoles, les nouveaux entrants ou ‘changeurs de carrière’, et les adoptants ultérieurs. Nous clarifions aussi les différents types d’organisations dans le paysage du conseil, en distinguant ceux qui sont liés aux ventes d’intrants ou de technologies de ceux qui en sont indépendants. Nous formulons des recommandations concrètes sur la manière faire intervenir des conseillers auprès de groupes difficiles d’accès, avec des approches adaptées aux différents contextes nationaux des systèmes de connaissances et d’innovation agricoles (AKIS). Ces recommandations pourraient ainsi contribuer à la dimension AKIS des Plans Stratégiques Nationaux de la prochaine Politique agricole commune (2023–2027). Nous plaidons pour une intégration plus forte des avancées des sciences sociales permettant une meilleure compréhension du conseil en tant qu’interaction sociale, afin de renforcer le caractère inclusif des politiques publiques de conseil. Obwohl die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik der Europäischen Union ihre Ziele um soziale Aspekte erweitert hat, werden mehrere schwer erreichbare Gruppen von Landwirten und Landwirtinnen sowie Beschäftigte von den Beratungsdiensten und den damit verbundenen Maßnahmen weiterhin ignoriert. Der Kontakt zu diesen Gruppen birgt ein großes Potenzial zur Stärkung des wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Zusammenhalts der europäischen Landwirtschaft. Wir haben über 1,000 Landwirte und Landwirtinnen in ganz Europa befragt und dabei Eigenschaften dieser Gruppen ermittelt, die von den Beratungsdiensten häufig übersehen werden. Wir haben kritisch über die sozialen Gruppen nachgedacht, die von den Beratungsdiensten übergangen werden, und darüber, wie sie besser erreicht werden könnten. Hierzu gehören Beschäftigte, Neu‐ oder Quereinsteigende und spätere Anwender und Anwenderinnen. Wir verdeutlichen die verschiedenen Arten von Beratung in der Beratungslandschaft und unterscheiden zwischen solchen, die mit dem Verkauf von Betriebsmitteln oder Technologien verbunden oder davon unabhängig sind. Wir geben konkrete Empfehlungen, wie die Beratung mit schwer erreichbaren Gruppen zusammenarbeiten kann, und zwar mit Ansätzen, die für die verschiedenen nationalen Kontexte der landwirtschaftlichen Wissens‐ und Innovationssysteme (AKIS) geeignet sind. Damit leisten wir einen Beitrag zur AKIS‐Dimension der nationalen Strategiepläne der nächsten Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik (2023–2027). Wir plädieren für eine effektivere Nutzung der Fortschritte in den Sozialwissenschaften durch ein besseres Verständnis von Beratung als sozialer Interaktion, die die Inklusivität der öffentlichen Politik stärken kann.

Suggested Citation

  • Pierre Labarthe & Lee‐Ann Sutherland & Catherine Laurent & Geneviève Nguyen & Talis Tisenkopfs & Pierre Triboulet & Noemie Bechtet & Ellen Bulten & Boelie Elzen & Lívia Madureira & Christina Noble & J, 2022. "Who are Advisory Services Leaving Out? A Critical Reflection on ‘Hard to Reach’ Farmers," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(1), pages 50-55, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:21:y:2022:i:1:p:50-55
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12347
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12347?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Labarthe, Pierre & Laurent, Catherine, 2013. "Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: Towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 240-252.
    2. Laurens Klerkx & Karin Grip & Cees Leeuwis, 2006. "Hands off but Strings Attached: The Contradictions of Policy-induced Demand-driven Agricultural Extension," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(2), pages 189-204, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abbasi Fatemeh & Esparcia Javier & Saadi Heshmat A., 2019. "From Analysis to Formulation of Strategies for Farm Advisory Services (Case Study: Valencia – Spain). an Application through Swot and Qspm Matrix," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 43-73, March.
    2. Julie Ingram & Jane Mills & Jasmine E. Black & Charlotte-Anne Chivers & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Annemie Elsen & Magdalena Frac & Belén López-Felices & Paula Mayer-Gruner & Kamilla Skaalsveen & Jannes , 2022. "Do Agricultural Advisory Services in Europe Have the Capacity to Support the Transition to Healthy Soils?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, April.
    3. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Olschewski, Roland, 2019. "Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 200-215.
    4. Thomas Pircher & Conny J. M. Almekinders, 2021. "Making sense of farmers’ demand for seed of root, tuber and banana crops: a systematic review of methods," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(5), pages 1285-1301, October.
    5. Eligio Malusà & Ewa M. Furmanczyk & Małgorzata Tartanus & Gerjan Brouwer & Claude-Eric Parveaud & François Warlop & Markus Kelderer & Jutta Kienzle & Evelyne Alcazar Marin & Teun Dekker & Radek Vávra , 2022. "Knowledge Networks in Organic Fruit Production across Europe: A Survey Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 260-276, June.
    7. Akimowicz, Mikaël & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Gallai, Nicola & Képhaliacos, Charilaos, 2022. "The leader, the keeper, and the follower? A legitimacy perspective on the governance of varietal innovation systems for climate changes adaptation. The case of sunflower hybrids in France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    8. Landel, Pauline, 2015. "Réseaux d’action publique et accès aux connaissances pour la « transition écologique »," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 347(May-June).
    9. Florence Jacquet & Marie-Helene Jeuffroy & Julia Jouan & Edith Le Cadre-Barthélemy & Thibaut Malausa & Xavier Reboud & Christian Huyghe, 2022. "Zéro pesticide : un nouveau paradigme de recherche pour une agriculture durable," Post-Print hal-03587361, HAL.
    10. Laurens Klerkx & Andy Hall & Cees Leeuwis, 2009. "Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(5/6), pages 409-438.
    11. Lin, Yang & Hu, Ruifa & Zhang, Chao & Chen, Kevin, 2022. "The role of public agricultural extension services in driving fertilizer use in rice production in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    12. Alex Koutsouris, 2012. "Exploring the emerging facilitation and brokerage roles for agricultural extension education," Working Papers 2012-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    13. Yang, Huan & Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2014. "Functions and limitations of farmer cooperatives as innovation intermediaries: Findings from China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 115-125.
    14. Serge Savary & Sonia Akter & Conny Almekinders & Jody Harris & Lise Korsten & Reimund Rötter & Stephen Waddington & Derrill Watson, 2020. "Mapping disruption and resilience mechanisms in food systems," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(4), pages 695-717, August.
    15. Lee‐Ann Sutherland & Lívia Madureira & Boelie Elzen & Christina Noble & Noemie Bechtet & Leanne Townsend & Eleni Zarokosta & Pierre Triboulet, 2022. "What Can We Learn from Droppers and Non‐adopters About the Role of Advice in Agricultural Innovation?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(1), pages 40-49, April.
    16. Ton, Giel & Klerkx, Laurens & de Grip, Karin & Rau, Marie-Luise, 2015. "Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-23.
    17. Bertolozzi-Caredio, Daniele & Bardají, Isabel & Garrido, Alberto & Berry, Robert & Bijttebier, Jo & Gavrilescu, Camelia & Harizanova, Hristina & Jendrzejewski, Błażej & Meuwissen, Miranda M.P. & Ollen, 2021. "Stakeholder perspectives to improve risk management in European farming systems," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 84, pages 147-161.
    18. Pranay VERMA & Neena SINHA, 2016. "Technology Acceptance Model Revisited For Mobile Based Agricultural Extension Services In India," Management Research and Practice, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 8(4), pages 29-38, December.
    19. Julien Lamontagne-Godwin & Peter Dorward & Irshad Ali & Naeem Aslam & Sarah Cardey, 2019. "An Approach to Understand Rural Advisory Services in a Decentralised Setting," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Sophie Payne-Gifford & C. S. Srinivasan & Peter Dorward, 2021. "Blunting EU Regulation 1107/2009: following a regulation into a system of agricultural innovation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 221-241, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:21:y:2022:i:1:p:50-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.