Book of Abstract (incl. addendum) - IFSA symposium 2012

Workshop 1.1 Knowledge flows in pluralistic research and advisory systems: how do advisors
keep up-to-date and to what extent is their advice evidence-based?
Advisory Devices Features Farmer’s Capacity for Innovation and Lock-in
Hélène Brives, Pauline Riousset and Stéphane de Tourdonnet
AgroParisTech, France
Helene.Brives@agroparistech.fr
Agroecology theoreticians argue that agroecology cannot be transferred like technology but requires
alternative extension practices through participatory networks (Warner 2008). Promotion of
conservation agriculture in France stands on the same position criticizing scientist laboratory methods
and extension services expertise. In a context of privatization of extension services, agrobusiness firms
play a major role in the extension of conservation agriculture (Labarthe 2006, Goulet 2008).
This communication addresses the following research questions: i) What are private bodies’
extension strategies for agroecological practices and what are the techniques extended under the label
“conservation agriculture”? ii) How does an advisory device feature farmers’ innovation capacity and
the flexibility of their technical systems?
Our research is based on a field work within a French cooperative which defines its business
plan in terms of sustainable development and “ecological intensification.” Conservation agriculture is a
textbook example of the approach. In this cooperative of eastern France, two advisors, both equally
eager to promote conservation agriculture, are using contrasted methods: one provides instructions on
conservation agriculture while the other organizes a network of participatory social learning.
The results obtained are as follows:
● Advisory devices are contrasted
● Conservation agriculture leads to a range of prescriptions and agronomical practices
● Innovation processes, dependences and lock-in:
In the first case, farmer’s capacity for innovation is built on the advisor taking on the management of
risks. Only one agronomic system and one way to achieve it, is thus possible. In the club, farmer’s
capacity for innovation is built on the availability of a wide range of means to solve problems and thus
allows a diversity of agronomic systems and innovation paths. Expectations for GMOs are much
greater in the first case than within the club.
The advisors’ view on the privatized extension system in the federal state of
Brandenburg, Germany
Ulrike Knuth and Andrea Knierim
Leibniz-Centre of Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Germany
Knuth@zalf.de
In the federal state of Brandenburg, Germany, provision of agricultural extension has been privatised in
the early nineties. Since then, public financial support was reduced continuously until full deletion in
2001. In 1996, a first empirical evaluation of Brandenburg's extension system (Bokelmann et al.
1996) had been undertaken revealing the view of the advisors and farmers on the privatized system at
that time. Since 2006, several empirical studies were carried out, that explore specific segments of the
Brandenburg agricultural knowledge system, some focussing explicitly on the view of farm advisors.
The paper presents selected results that characterise the advisors' perspective from those studies in
2006 (Knuth 2008) and 2010 (Knierim et al. 2011).
The privatisation process resulted in concentration and diminution of advisory services and
cooperation between advisory companies was clearly reduced:
Contentwise advisory services in Brandenburg tend to concentrate on economic topics, especially
investment planning often combined with subsidy questions. Cross Compliance topics are seldomly
discussed explicitly but combined with other interests of the farmer. Farm Management Systems
(FMS) as a main instrument for CC advice in Germany are sparsely used in Brandenburg, as the
development of FMS and the supply of CC advice were not co-funded by the state unlike in other
16