Setting up the Living Labs: selecting the contexts and topics
Two criteria were important in selecting the topic and setting of the AgriLink Living Labs.
The first was relevance to sustainable agriculture (which we discussed in Session 2). Each country team selected a topical issue with a clear sustainability challenge in which the potential role of advice was expected to be significant (as you will discover in later sessions, the issue did not always turn out to be as clear as first imagined).
The second criterion was more pragmatic: ease of establishment and implementation of a Living Lab. In selecting the topic and setting of the different Living Labs, pre-existing relations with the relevant stakeholders was an important consideration. In practice, the Spanish, Dutch, Norwegian and Latvian Living Labs built on existing relations, but the Romania and Italian Living Labs started in a new setting with limited prior relations.
Furthermore, it is relevant to note that the Dutch and Norwegian Living Labs were embedded in a wider project or programme with the expectation that that would increase financial room for intervention and facilitate an introduction.
Figure 3.1 below illustrates the overall logic of the AgriLink Living Labs. In practice, it was recognised that this would be a more complex, cyclical and iterative process than this linear representation suggests.
Figure 3.1 The logic sequence behind the Living Labs in the AgriLink project
Show description|Hide descriptionA diagram depicting four circles drawn horizontally. The first circle says Living Lab and the legend underneath the circle says intervention. The second circle says improved innovation support services and has output below it. The third says contribution to innovation and learning with outcome as the legend. The last circle says more sustainable agriculture and has impact below it.
The interactive diagram below provides an overview of the six Living Labs, the main topic, the sustainability and advisory issues at stake, and the advisory service in development. It is important to note that the selection criteria were the implicit starting point but have been further developed and made explicit iteratively and in collaboration with stakeholders throughout the Living Lab process.
The interactive diagram shows that a wide variety of producers were involved in the Living Labs. These range from small scale horticultural producers in Latvia and Romania to commercial vegetable, dairy and arable farmers in Spain, Norway and the Netherlands, and a variety of community level stakeholders in local communities in Italy.
In the objectives of the Living Labs, two groups can be distinguished. On the one hand, some Living Labs aimed to stimulate the development of a specific part of the value chain for a certain product and stakeholder group such as small holders selling to local markets or farmer cooperative. On the other hand, other Living Labs aimed to stimulate the application of specific sustainable practices like crop rotation, IPM and sustainable soil management.
For the further understanding of the dynamics in the Living Labs, it is important to note that the first group focus on sustainability challenges where predominantly a private good issue is at stake, the living labs in the latter group tend to focus on public good issues.
Active content not displayed. This content requires JavaScript to be enabled.
Show description|Hide descriptionTable: Summary of the six Living Labs| Country | Topic | Sustainability challenge | Advisory challenge | Advisory service in development |
| Italy | Local food production on common land and development of local value chain | Improve income situation, communal strength and environmental sustainability | Facilitate community development and provide knowledge on a broad range of topics to a diverse stakeholder group. | To be determined: an advisory service able to support multi-actor groups in the sustainable management of common land |
| Latvia | Processing and marketing of horticultural products | Improve the profitability of horticultural production and the living standard of small producers | Make relevant knowledge available to small scale producers | Online information platform for processing and marketing |
| Netherlands – Belgium | Sustainable soil management in maize cultivation | Improve maize production and reduce environmental impact of maize cultivation | Stimulate and enable farmers to apply more sustainable soil management in maize cultivation | - Decision support tree on catch crops
- Nitrate tour to increase awareness
- Kitchen table talk between farmer, contractor and advisor
|
| Norway | Crop rotation on farm and between farms | Strengthen use of local natural resources, improve environmental sustainability, and improve income for farmers | Stimulate and enable farmers to apply crop rotation on farm and between farms. | To be determined: an innovation support services and tools that facilitate crop rotation, especially between farms |
| Romania | Professionalisation of food producers’ cooperative | To improve income security of food producers | Improving the access to reliable, timely information for one cooperative | Design training and informational materials to suit their needs OR identify relevant experts with key (financial) knowledge |
| Spain | Integrated pest management | Reduce pesticide use to increase food safety and reduce air pollution, contamination of agricultural land and loss of biodiversity. | Improving the knowledge and skills of farmers and advisors to apply IPM. Development of new roles of advisors, as supporters of digital services. | Warning Digital System and collaborative monitoring of pests IPM Thematic group of farmers for innovation and demonstrations. |
Interactive feature not available in single page view (
see it in standard view).
A PDF version [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] of this interactive is available for download.
While the interactive diagram above gives a summary of the six Living Labs, the second interactive diagram, below, summarises the logic of each Lab as set out in Figure 3.1, but further details on each of them can be found on the AgriLink website.
Active content not displayed. This content requires JavaScript to be enabled.
Show description|Hide descriptionTable: Summary of the logic of each Living Lab| Intervention | Output | Outcome | Impact |
| Norwegian Living Lab | - i.Crop rotation on advisory-agenda
- ii.Approach for coop between farmers
| - i.Crop rotation in advisory service
- ii.Farmers cooperate in crop rotation
| Improved environment and increased value for farmers |
| Dutch/Belgian Living Lab | Nitrate tour Decision support catch crops | Awareness of own influence, Ability to catch crops | More sustainable Maize cultivation |
| Spanish Living Lab | Demonstrations and new technologies in the advisory service | Ability to apply more sustainable techniques and learn from each other | Improve the advisory service for more sustainable agriculture |
| Latvian Living Lab | Online database of available advisory services for horticultural | Awareness of gaps in knowledge and advice provision | Improved livelihood of horticultural producers |
| Italian Living Lab | Wheat production guidelines booklet | Increased knowledge and awareness of agronomic choices | More sustainable what production, higher standard of wheat quality |
| Romanian Living Lab | Fiscal Guideline for small producers Cooperative = info hub | Small producers submit fiscal declarations | Better integration on the market of small producers |
Interactive feature not available in single page view (
see it in standard view).
A PDF version of this interactive is available for download.
