Most agencies supporting agricultural research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) provide funds for discrete projects over specific periods of time, usually a maximum of three years. Research topics identified for calls for proposals are not always well aligned with users’ needs. In particular, research topics may not reflect the priorities of organizations - such as farmer organizations and private agribusinesses, with interests in the research outcomes; they are not generally supported to play a significant role as project partners.

During the period 2013-2019, the Agricultural Extension in South Asia (AESA) Network has served as a platform for collating the voices, insights, concerns, and experiences of people in the extension sphere of South Asia. Diverse professionals shared their concerns on the present and future of Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) in the form of blog conversations for AESA. Together, all of these individuals who are involved, interested and passionate about EAS, discussed ways to move beyond some of the seemingly intransigent problems that are hindering the professionalization of EAS.

Increasing attention is being given to evaluating the impact of advisory services in terms of their effectiveness in providing farmers with knowledge and networks for innovation as well as understanding the factors that influence this effectiveness (Prager et al, 2017). The demand and uptake of advisory services is one factor and Klerkx et al (2017) comment on the variation in farmers’ demand and the influences of variables such as farm size, asset status and education as well as stability or turbulence in the regulatory environment.

The profound changes in European policy for farms advisory services (FAS) require a period of experimentation and results observation before the new CAP 2021-2027. This paper focuses on Measure 2 of Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014-2020. The paper is focused on the description of case studies in three Italian regions: Campania, Emilia-Romagna and Veneto. Different Measure 2 – sub-measure 2.1 models are analyzed through a qualitative approach, using a conceptual framework adapted by Birner et al. (2009).