Este trabajo describe la evolución desde los sistemas de transferencia de conocimientos agrarios más tradicionales, con transmisión lineal de la investigación a los usuarios, hasta sistemas que propicien en mayor medida la innovación, con la intervención de multiplicidad de actores entre los que se incluyen investigadores, agricultores, asesores, educadores, políticos, empresarios, etc.
This paper investigates the current research on how consumers select the foods they buy and how they define ‘quality’. Consumer decisions are complex and whilst a few consumers prioritise local above all other factors when selecting food, for most local is simply one of multiple factors which influence the food choices they make. Short Food Chains are not necessarily local but are based on supply chains with fewer steps in the chain from producer to consumer. Short Food Chains ensure that
A “farmers’ market” identifies a common area where farmers meet periodically to sell food products which do not need to be processed before consumption. Farmers’ markets have recently experienced steady growth mainly due to increasing demand for traditional foods and rising consumers’ interest towards locally produced food products. It is also the case that they provide transparency along the supply chain and decrease information asymmetries.
Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) are central to the alternative food movement discourse. SFSCs are based upon the interrelations among actors who are directly involved in the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food products. They depend upon actors mobilising resources of various kinds: skills; knowledge; labour; capital; buildings etc. External factors such as policies and regulations can also encourage the creation of these shorter chains. The development of SFSCs can still be hindered by a range of other factors.
This report compiles country-reports that describe the agri-food research landscape in 2006/2007 in 33 countries associated to the 6th Framework Programme (FP6), which defined the European for the period from 2002 to 2006. Each country-report presents information about the main research players in 2006/2007 and about the current trends and the future needs for research topics and for the organisation of the agri-food research system.
This document provides a review of existing reports regarding the agri-food research landscape in 2006/2007 for 14 EU countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey) and also explores trends and needs in other EU or associated countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Kingdom).
This report presents the results of a study that shall contribute to provide information on the national organisation of agricultural research and an overall picture of developments in agricultural research in 33 selected countries (current EU28 plus Iceland, Israel, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey). The study covers all areas related to agricultural and food research research including research dedicated to emerging challenges of the European agricultural and food sector in 2006/2007.
The ‘Mapping Report’ is the synthesis of the statistical information and the survey results available to describe agrifood research in European countries. The main source of information was the results of a bibliometric analysis (in the EU-33 countries), a web-assisted survey (in the EU-12+2 countries) and the country reports (for the EU-15 countries) prepared in the AgriMapping project frame in 2006 and 2007. When relevant, available complementary statistics were also used.
This presentation at the GCARD Montpellier, in March 2010, focuses on the Danish model for agricultural advisory services.
As part of the EU funded AgriSpin project (www.agrispin.eu), which aimed at “creating space for innovations” in agriculture across Europe, this contribution addresses the above mentioned knowledge gaps by a. elaborating a generic typology appropriate to capture the variety of ISS, b. structuring selected innovations along the degree of technological change and coordination levels, and c.