Governance dynamics and the quest for coordination in pluralistic agricultural advisory systems

The functioning of agricultural extension, henceforth referred to as agricultural (or rural) advisory systems, is of renewed interest to researchers and agricultural policy-makers in many countries (Christoplos 2010; Faure, Desjeux, and Gasselin 2012; Sulaiman and Davis 2012; Knierim et al. 2015; Klerkx, Landini, and Santoyo-Cortés 2016). A particular issue emerging from both scholarly and practitioner domains relates to the coordination and governance of advisory systems, particularly in the context of pluralistic advisory systems in which many different organisations, including the private and public sectors as well as not-for-profit groups are involved (Birner et al. 2009; Klerkx and Jansen 2010; Klerkx and Proctor 2013; Labarthe and Laurent 2013a, 2013b; Phillipson et al. 2016).

Whilst much research has focused on processes and dynamics within advisory services (e.g. Ingram 2008; Koutsouris 2008; Kilelu, Klerkx, and Leeuwis 2014) and the role of advisory services in the wider agricultural innovation system (Klerkx, Hall, and Leeuwis 2009; Cristóvão, Koutsouris, and Kügler 2012; Knierim et al. 2015; Camacho-Villa et al. 2016), the area related to institutional arrangements and the governance of advisory systems remains an area in which more research has been called for (Prager et al. 2016), in view of ongoing reform such as decentralisation and privatisation of advisory services, an issue which has been debated now for over three decades (Rivera 1993, 2000; Rivera and Alex 2004b, 2004a; Laurent, Cerf, and Labarthe 2006; Parkinson 2009; Minh et al. 2014).

While privatisation of advisory systems has been widespread in the context of the global neoliberal agenda, increasingly its impacts in both a positive sense as well as its (unintended) negative consequences in the form of market and system failures are becoming visible, and have also been discussed in a broad body of literature from 2000 onwards (Kidd et al. 2000; Leeuwis 2000; Rivera and Alex 2004a; Klerkx, De Grip, and Leeuwis 2006; Laurent, Cerf, and Labarthe 2006; Rivera 2008; Faure, Desjeux, and Gasselin 2012), and continue to be discussed also in recent years (Hunt et al. 2012, 2014; Sutherland et al. 2013; Labarthe and Laurent 2013b; Prager et al. 2016; Prager, Creaney, and Lorenzo-Arribas 2017), there are remaining gaps for research. These include: different consequences of privatisation in different countries; how governance and coordination of advisory systems is being progressed in response to positive and negative consequences of privatisation; and, the evolving roles of different organisations and especially actors from the private sector (agribusiness firms, consultancy companies, farmers’ organisations) in providing advisory services. These topics remain understudied, particularly related to comparing strategies and findings across countries and in different contexts.

This special issue aims to fill these gaps, arising from a workshop held as part of the 12th International Farming Systems Association (Europe group) symposium, entitled ‘Developing agricultural advisory systems for innovation: Governance and innovative practices’. The special issue provides insights in to the current realities of pluralistic advisory situations in five countries which have experienced or are currently experiencing (partial) privatisation of the advisory system to examine issues and challenges in building institutional environments favourable to the functioning of pluralistic advisory systems as well as reflecting on policies to promote new governance structures. The papers focus on the private-sector role and all examine case studies including pilot programmes related to national, regional or the local context.

The special issue comprises studies from Peru, Norway, New Zealand, France and Australia, providing a range of contexts for understanding privatisation and the processes regarding the governance of advisory systems involving the private sector. This context includes the diversity of farmers and farming systems; policy settings and the role of government. Together the papers aim to provide understanding on topics such as:

• emerging impacts and implications for farmers and advisory organisations from processes of privatisation and the role of government;

• theories and frameworks used to understand changes in, and governance of extension and rural advisory systems;

• the practices of coordination of advisors and the relationship between public and private providers.

The first paper by Faure et al describes and discusses the consequences from privatisation within a sub-regional level in Peru and relating to small-holder farmers, a group often considered to be excluded from access to services as a consequence of privatisation (Labarthe and Laurent 2013b; Sutherland et al. 2017). The paper examines the role of different private-sector organisations, how services coordinate and the extent to which small-holder farmers access and use these services. Drawing on evidence from farmers and advisors, as well as an analysis of the changes in institutional arrangements relating to advisory services in a single region, the study shows that transitions from the public to the private sector are not straightforward. Alongside the increasing role of private companies, and to a lesser extent, NGOs and producer organisations in offering advisory services, privatisation remains partial. Of significance is the finding that whilst more farmers have access to and use advisory services and therefore cannot be considered ‘excluded’, advice remains tied to commercial farm inputs which was found to increase production costs. Further, advisory methods remain top-down and technical in focus with limited differences in approaches, but more competition, between advisory services including those of the State. Technical advice is not fully addressing many farmers’ demands, the training of advisors remains a gap and new types of advisory services beyond technical advice are not being developed. It is concluded that policies are needed to address these issues. The suggested consequences from not creating such governance mechanisms include the potential for excessive consumption of inputs with associated environmental consequences and increased risks for small farmers. From this case, the importance of the coordination and governance of advisory services, mainly based on forums to foster exchanges among advisory organisations and farmers at a regional level is raised as more important than issues to do with exclusion of farmers from services.

The topic of farmer needs and the regional coordination of advisory systems is extended in the second paper by Klerkx et al. Here the authors examine the situation in Norway related to the fit of advisory systems to the range of farmer types. Drawing on Birner et al.’s framework of ‘best fit’ within the context of national agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS) (Birner et al. 2009), the authors explore how different advisory services serve the needs of different types of clients based on farming objectives and styles. The findings from farmer interviews, workshops with advisors and analysis of policy documents suggest that ‘advisory sub-systems’ are emerging in Norway. A typology of these sub-systems is proposed (i.e. holistic, elitist and public) representing different configurations of advisors in relation to farmer types. The authors furthermore conclude that strong public policy on the role of farming practices in public goods, coupled with the establishment of regional-scale public–private partnerships, have moderated potential negative impacts from increasing privatisation. This has occurred through the development of a shared interest and engagement with public-good issues amongst advisors and their advisory organisations. From this case, the importance of public policy and regional governance arrangements involving public–private partnerships is highlighted, as well as the need to move beyond national boundaries to delineate AKIS or sub-systems therein as is now currently often done.

The coordination of advisory services, however, requires an understanding of the different ways advisors perform their role and operate in networks (Klerkx and Proctor 2013; Phillipson et al. 2016). The third paper from Cerf et al. focuses on different intermediation practices in advisory service networks using the case of the French Ecophyto Plan which aims to support practice change in pesticide use in French agriculture. The paper develops a framework to identify how intermediation takes place in advisory networks, in order to capture how the delivery of advice is organised for supporting farmers in redesigning their cropping systems and achieving large-scale farmer participation in such change processes. Using the example of three advisory networks, an analysis of intermediation practice was conducted across three levels: (1) political, (2) experiential and (3) collaborative. The authors found key differences in the way public and private networks shape advice provision and identified different interests for being involved. Further, as in the Peru case, competition between advisory models was identified rather than the coordination of systems for advice. This evidence provides an imperative for governance arrangements to engage different networks in order to effectively contribute to the reduction of pesticide use in France, which remains below target. Despite involvement of a range of advisors, these systemic barriers were not currently being acknowledged. Whilst the importance of intermediation in developing innovative responses to sustainability challenges is well recognised in the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) and other literatures, this paper identifies key roles and practices of intermediation and the different levels of intermediation practice that need to be considered with respect to implementing policies presenting large-scale change challenges.

The issues of competing advisory models and the establishment and maintenance of public–private partnerships are further analysed in the fourth paper by Rijswijk and Brazendale. Using the example of an issue faced by dairy farmers in New Zealand related to pasture persistence, the paper reports on findings from the formation of an innovation network involving public and private actors to address the issue by stimulating innovation in advisory services and coordination between service providers. In this regard, the paper examines both the consequences of near full privatisation in the New Zealand agricultural extension system and the new governance arrangements required to address new challenges. The New Zealand ‘technology transfer’ system is described as fragmented because of the low level of connection between advisory organisations, limited advisory skills to address new challenges, the limited number of advisors able to respond to challenges and the limited number of organisations invested in responding. An intervention to create an advisory network and address the issue of coordination and governance of advisory services is described and discussed. Using a conceptual framework related to the effectiveness of innovation networks (Morrar 2015), the findings from surveys and workshops with stakeholders and advisory organisations involved in the intervention found that whilst the establishment of the innovation network assisted in achieving consensus to avoid duplication and inconsistent advice, challenges remain. These included the level of collaboration and interaction required, as well as the applicability and effectiveness of the different incentives and arrangements made with the public and private actors, such as the different levels of investment of resources. The paper contributes to understanding the governance challenges of forming and maintaining innovation networks associated with the dynamics of public- and private-sector interaction.

The ways to involve the private sector more in advisory system governance and the theoretical frameworks that can guide action to this end, is the focus of the final paper by Paschen et al., which examines the context of the Australian pluralistic extension system. The paper reviews private-sector roles in extension with respect to the Australian research, development and extension system, a system in which decisions regarding the involvement of the private sector is dominated by the different approaches of agricultural industries as well as the different levels of government involvement in each state. Drawing on transitions and practice theories to analyse the current situation, the findings highlight the importance of understanding the social meaning associated with national agricultural policies or ‘regime constraints’ and the subsequent challenge for the formation of ‘niches’ that set out to bring farmers, public and private advisors and regime actors together. The paper goes on to describe the design of a current project intervention in the Australian context. This intervention involves co-innovation ‘trials’ to engage public- and private-sector actors in cross-industry collaborative processes, thereby examining the establishment of such niches in the context of power relationships and the governance structure of the current regime for advisory service systems. In this way, the paper engages with the research agenda proposed for advisory systems noted by Faure et al. (2012), related to how the private sector participates in decision-making processes to orient advisory programmes and not just their involvement in providing advice to farmers.

Considering the papers together, whilst different countries are at different stages in the journeys associated with privatisation and its consequences, the papers are representative of many of the constraints and opportunities in governance of pluralistic advisory systems, with three notable themes:

• As pluralistic advisory systems mature, governance issues to regulate competition or complement services become more pronounced and the focus of concern relating to exclusion of groups of farmers may diminish. Governance arrangements to coordinate service offerings; to build the skills and capabilities of advisors; and, the decisions relating to payments, incentives and structures for development of new offerings with the private sector in response to new challenges, all come to the forefront as important elements of pluralistic advisory systems. In this new context, the boundaries between public- and private-sector groups are no longer obvious because in many cases new institutional or financial arrangements occur between public- and private-sector groups such as multi-stakeholders networks or hybrid organisations.

• Regional extension dynamics and networks of private and public providers cannot be considered as uniform within a particular national agricultural knowledge system. Regional or even supranational sub-systems of advisory configurations are emerging, that reflect local or supranational interests and imperatives despite the political nature of many national reforms in extension. To what extent private extension is able to address the diversity of farmers’ demand and to what extent it orients the content of advice is a key issue when addressing public goods.

• Within advisory systems, attention must be provided to the diversity of advisory practices within and between public- and private-sector groups. This does not just relate to particular technical expertise or the ways of working with farmers, but to the nature of intermediation practice, that is, intermediation to match clients with the right advisor, intermediation to broker networks of advisors to share experience and offer complementary service, or how advisory work itself needs to be more broadly understood as intermediation (see also Leeuwis and Aarts 2011; Koutsouris 2014). This can constrain coordination efforts. In this regard, the purpose of collaboration amongst private- and public-sector advisors relates to the development of practice, and not just the alignment of services.

Concluding reflections and a way forward

The importance of research processes alongside the evolving and emerging realities of privatisation of advisory services has been demonstrated in this special issue. In addition, useful theorisations relating to the structures, processes and practices of private-sector advisory services have been proposed and developed. These theories contribute to research and policy directions focusing on the operationalisation of effective farm advisory systems with a better complementarity between private and public providers. This represents a re-orientation in the direction of the research agenda from understanding impacts and consequences of privatisation to understanding the mechanisms which have emerged for adaptive governance of advisory systems involving public and private groups. This shift is an important one as the scale and speed of the challenges facing farmers and advisory services increase, as represented in climate change challenges or in reduced pesticide reliance at a national scale, such as in France. The imperative to have advisory services aligned and integrated has perhaps never been greater, but the constraints remain problematic and privatisation transitions are not straight forward. This situation challenges scholars to better contribute to articulating the policies and practices most needed to support a coherent system. To this end, we propose further research with respect to governance arrangements in privatised advisory systems such as:

• different models of funding and incentive arrangements to support coordination amongst advisory networks;

• comparative analysis of forms of public-sector involvement in the regulation and support to private and commercial advisory systems;

• motivations for engagement by the private sector in developing new approaches in collaboration with other advisors;

• comparative analysis of systems for maintaining and growing advisory skills and capacity through vocational training and exchange between practitioners;

• studies of complementarity of different advisory methods and use of tools;

• emergence of dedicated advisory sub-systems serving particular segments of farmers;

• regionalisation and internationalisation of advisory services, and their formation and practices with respect to national AKIS contexts.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the independent reviewers of all papers for this special issue.

ORCID

Ruth Nettle http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8347-6693

Laurens Klerkx http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1664-886X

Guy Faure http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8327-6085