sustainability
Article
Shifting from Fragmentation to Integration:
A Proposed Framework for Strengthening
Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System
in Egypt
Yehia Zahran 1 , Hazem S. Kassem 1,2, * , Shimaa M. Naba 3 and Bader Alhafi Alotaibi 2
1
2
3
*
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Society, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt;
hazem@mans.edu.eg
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Society, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia;
balhafi@ksu.edu.sa
Institute of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Agricultural Research Center (ARC),
Cairo 12619, Egypt; kassemhsm@gmail.com
Correspondence: hskassem@ksu.edu.sa; Tel.: +966-5810-45671
Received: 21 May 2020; Accepted: 22 June 2020; Published: 23 June 2020
Abstract: Agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) has a strong potential to enhance
economic performance of farming and contribute to agricultural sustainability, as it may increase
synergies and complementarity among actors. This paper is aimed to develop a proposed framework
to strengthen AKIS in the study area based on the results of this study. This paper explores perception
and views about strengthening AKIS in Dakhalia governorate of Egypt by applying a multi-actor
approach. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through face-to-face interviews and focus
group discussion. This paper focuses on three structural dimensions, namely actors, interactions,
and technologies, to describe the nature of innovation processes within AKIS. Results indicate
that legal and regulatory frameworks, lack of infrastructure, and weak the role of intermediary
organizations are the main barriers that AKIS faces. Linkages of contracting and public–private
partnerships were viewed as main interactions required to strengthen AKIS. The analysis also explores
the availability of innovation requirements at each actor, as well as the distributive technologies,
that should be encouraged to build the capacity the agricultural sector. A proposed framework is
developed based on the results of this study and the characteristics of the AKIS in the study area.
This framework could be used for stimulating innovation and enhancing coordination between actors.
Keywords: agricultural knowledge; innovation system; interaction linkages; framework; sustainable
agriculture; Egypt
1. Introduction
To meet the increasing demand of food and to respond to new market opportunities,
agricultural systems worldwide need to be more sustainable by generating and applying new
knowledge and innovations [1]. Innovation is seen as one of the main drivers of productivity,
self-sufficiency, competitiveness, and profitability, and at the same time, a tool to ensure environmental
sustainability [2,3]. Despite this, there is evidence that innovations are not widely adopted at scale,
and the agricultural systems are not reaching its full potential in terms of innovation due to the approach
adopted in managing resources, socioeconomic concerns, and policy regulations and measures [4,5].
This lack of innovation in agriculture has led to the question of how the agricultural innovations
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131; doi:10.3390/su12125131
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
2 of 23
are developed, spread, organized, and how the quality and relevance of these processes can be
enhanced [6,7].
Historically, the framework that describes the process of knowledge generation and use in
agriculture was dominated by a linear model (transfer of technology approach) [8]. This approach
operated under the assumption that technology is developed by scientists, then extension services
diffuse these innovations among farmers. This concept was further developed to agricultural knowledge
system to illustrate the interactions of research, extension, and education with farmers [9,10].
With the need for rural competitiveness to allow agricultural systems to remain competitive
in a changing socioeconomic environment, the concept of agricultural innovation system (AIS)
was merged to reflect the importance of going beyond the creation of knowledge and highlights that
innovation systems are social systems [11]. This thinking was developed over time toward promotion of
agricultural system multifunctionality by supporting collective and integrated processes of multi-actors
to co-produce innovations through interactions among all stakeholders in the agri-food chain [3].
Recently, the conceptualization of agricultural innovation systems to better support sustainability is
called agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) [4,12]. According to EU [13], moving from
the linear model of knowledge to AKIS is attributed to four drivers: Disconnection between farmers’
indigenous knowledge, extension, and research; increasing concern for adverse environmental impacts
associated with industrial agriculture in the policy agenda; multifunctional agriculture requires
coordination and integration among different stakeholders; and restructuring reforms that have been
implemented in research, extension, and education institutions.
The AKIS framework has been embedded in the policy agenda of many countries to explore and
analyze solutions of complex agricultural problems [12,14–17]. AKIS is broadly defined as a network
of individuals, enterprises, and organizations focused on developing innovations with regard to new
products, new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use, together with policies
and institutions that facilitate the way different stakeholders interact, access, share, exchange, and use
knowledge [12,15]. This framework includes three essential elements: (a) A knowledge and education
domain; (b) a business and enterprise domain; and (c) linkages between institutions that link the two
domains [3].
According to Hermans et al. [18], a well-developed AKIS has seven main functions,
including guidance of search, knowledge development, network formation and knowledge diffusion,
entrepreneurial activities, market formation, resource mobilization, and creation of legitimacy and
counteracting resistance to change. Therefore, it is important to diagnose AKIS at the level of a country,
a sector, or a particular technology [15]. Such analysis is important to understand the constraints
to innovation and technological change, role of innovation policies, and support structures and the
governance of actor interactions in innovation [12,15].
In Egypt, the AKIS has three main domains: Research and education: Agricultural Research
Center (ARC), Desert Research Center, universities, and vocational agricultural schools; intermediaries:
The Central Administration of Agricultural Extension Services and its local branches (extension centers),
private sectors, cooperatives, non-government organizations (NGOs); business and enterprise:
Farmers, agricultural companies, traders, and other stakeholders in the agricultural value chain [19].
Different studies examined the structure dimensions of AKIS in Egypt and reached to number of
problems and challenges that inhibit its efficiency and effectiveness in supporting innovation and
sustainability to the agricultural sector. These problems include: Fragmentation and dominance
of overall “technology transfer logics,” lack of laboratory and research capability of research and
development actors, weak interaction linkages among actors, trust among beneficiaries in scientific
research results, absence of knowledge utilization initiative of university policy planners, absence of clear
national plans for benefiting from agricultural innovations, and ineffective extension services [20–25].
These problems in AKIS has translated into a generally weak innovation system in Egypt. To address
such problems, the objective of our empirical study is to develop a framework of AKIS at a regional
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
3 of 23
level (Dakhalia governorate). This analysis may be useful to enhance the overall performance of AKIS
in the study area.
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1. The AKIS in the Dakhalia Governorate
The regional innovation system (RIS) concept was developed based on specific geographical
space, local conditions, and structural patterns [17,26]. RIS has five basic structural dimensions: Actors,
institutions, infrastructure (knowledge, physical, and financial), interactions, and technologies [12].
In the context of the present study, the AKIS in Dakhalia governorate (hereafter referred to as the
DG-AKIS) is comprised of multiple actors, both in the public and private sectors. As shown in Figure 1,
the framework includes three main domains: Farmer enterprises, intermediaries/bridging institutions,
and research and education institutions. These domains contain the key actors in the AKIS that
interact in certain ways to facilitate agricultural innovation development and access. However,
their interactions are influenced by policy processes, support structure, and supply–demand
structure [27]. Farmers and farmer cooperatives at the community level are the key actors of
the farmer enterprise domain. Intermediaries domain include actors, such as governmental extension,
NGOs, and private sectors. Mansoura University and ARC agricultural research stations are the
key actors involved in the development, adaptation, and dissemination of agricultural innovations.
In reviewing the strength of linkages between actors, only few linkages were seen to be strong.
The majority of these linkages between actors were perceived to be weak, and non-existent linkages
were observed in some cases.
Figure 1. The agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) framework in the study
area (Dakhalia governorate); Source: Naba [28] based on the agricultural innovation system (AIS)
framework of Spielman and Birner [27].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
4 of 23
2.2. Interaction Linkages between Actors
It has become clearly recognized that a single actor alone cannot solve many of the complex
problems that the agricultural sector is currently facing. However, the involvement of different
types of actors in the innovation processes is crucial to agricultural sustainability [29]. Consequently,
linkages among actors is being promoted in a way that intersectoral innovation groups were organized
to facilitate cooperative knowledge creation, knowledge flow, and knowledge sharing [30]. According to
Kassem et al. [31], interaction linkages include relation, collaboration, and links between actors that are
established for achieving common goals in less orchestrated ways. To promote interactions between
actors, several forms were increasingly used to enhance collective or coordinated action, including
multi-actor partnerships, territorial partnerships, and alliances, public–private partnerships (PPPs),
and communities of practice (learning partnerships) [1,6,13].
2.3. Requirements of Innovation in the Agricultural Sector
To support the innovation processes in the agricultural sector, policy structure should
ensure that measures target the appropriate level (national or regional) and intervention type
(e.g., structural funding and incentives) [13]. Policy should also take into account the research
and development framework. In other words, the facilitation of all procedures is needed to
ensure the relevance of research outcomes with end users’ needs [10]. This can be achieved by
providing sufficient funding, incorporating PPPs in research and innovation, excellent research
infrastructures, and collaborating with international partners [32]. In this context, EU [33] confirmed
that fostering innovation requires implementing of five main principles: Empowering people to
innovate, unleashing innovation in firms, creating and applying knowledge, applying innovation
to address global and social challenges, and improving the governance of policies for innovation.
Moreover, governments should develop innovative risk management strategies not only for the
resilience of vulnerable rural households or small enterprises, but also for leveraging finance and
investment [34].
2.4. Barriers to Development of the AKIS
System failures or inefficiency can form a blockade for innovation in the agricultural sector.
Infrastructure is one of the main determinants that may hinder or facilitate the performance
of the AKIS [15]. It includes a physical domain (roads, railroads, and telecommunication),
knowledge infrastructure (research and development facilities), and financial infrastructure
(investments) [28]. Furthermore, technical and organizational capacity of the actors to adapt and
manage agricultural technologies is another barrier [12,15]. In the same sense, market structure
plays a key role in arranging the supply and demand of information and knowledge in terms of the
relationships between market parties [33]. Weak networks and connections between actors can also be
detrimental for innovative performance [35]. Finally, lack of laws and regulations affect how actors
interact with each other, which in turn may hamper innovation [36]. As Weber and Rohracher [37]
noted, such barriers may negatively affect the capacity of innovation systems to coordinate policies,
set priorities, engage users in setting research agendas, and monitor and evaluate progress against
its goals.
3. Methodology
This study was carried out in the Dakahalia governorate in the northeast region of Egypt.
The governorate has a total area of 3500 km2 and a population of approximately 6 million, where an
estimated 71.8% live in rural areas. The governorate is considered to have a desert climate. The average
annual temperature is 20.5 ◦ C, and it receives an average 56 mm annual rainfall. March and April are
the wettest, whereas June, July, and August are the hottest months of the region. The governorate is
divided into 22 districts, with 37% of the total area cultivated. The majority of crops is grown under a
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
5 of 23
surface irrigation system from a network of canals and channels of the River Nile. Rice, wheat, corn,
Egyptian clover, Sugar beet, vegetables, and citrus fruits represent the major cropping pattern in the
governorate [38]. This governorate was selected as a site for the present study, as it considered the
largest governorate in terms of total agricultural land in the country (approximately 8.3%), as well as
characterized by agricultural production diversity [39]. Moreover, the geographic proximity of this
governorate to the research team facilitated good communication and collection of needed information.
The population of study consists of the employers in all actors of the DG-AKIS in the governorate.
Seven actors (research, advisory, education, private sector, credit, farmers, and cooperatives) involved in
different activities of the DG-AKIS were included in the study. Sampling was done separately for each
of the different actors. Data were collected from the randomly sampled 125 representatives of all actors
as follows: 15 researchers from research stations, 15 faculty members from the Faculty of Agriculture of
Mansoura University, 15 directors of extension centers and heads of agricultural extension departments
at the directorates, 10 headquarters of agricultural cooperatives, 10 representatives of head quarter
of agricultural companies, 10 directors of agricultural bank branches, and 50 farmers. Prior to data
collection, a pilot survey was conducted involving 5 representatives from each actor in the study area.
The authors revised several statements to suit the results of the pre-test and objectives of this study.
Consequently, the instrument was modified to its final version for data collection through face-to-face
interviews during January–March 2019.
To analyze the existing situation of DG-AKIS, the questionnaire consisted of five sections to examine
the three structural dimensions under investigation; actors (Sections 1–3), interactions (Section 4),
and technologies (Section 5). The first section included the actors’ acceptance level of developing the
DG-AKIS. In this part, actors were asked to identify the importance level of developing the AKIS
on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 5 (very important) to 1 (not important at all). Furthermore,
Actors were asked an open question about the benefits gained from strengthening the DG-AKIS.
The second section included the functions of actors within the DG-AKIS. In this section, we formed
an open question to illustrate the potential roles of each actor within the DG-AKIS. The third section
consisted of barriers to DG-AKIS development. These barriers were mentioned from the actors’ point of
view by asking an open question. The fourth section included the interaction linkages based on
literature review. In this section, the respondents were asked to identify each linkage’s importance level
on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 5 (very important) to 1 (not important at all). Moreover, each actor
was asked to explore the current linkages with other actors. Section five comprises the requirements of
sustainable agriculture and innovation approaches. These were concluded from international literature
and the Egyptian strategic plan 2030 [40]. In this section, surveyed actors were asked to identify the
availability level of sustainable agriculture requirements in Egypt on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from
5 (very high) to 1 (very low). Furthermore, the respondents identified the importance of innovation
approaches to Egyptian agriculture particularly at a governorate level, on a 5-point Likert scale ranged
from 5 (very important) to 1 (not important at all). Finally, they were also made to express their views
about the availability of sustainable agricultural requirements to each innovation approach.
We prepared the first draft of the suggested framework to strengthen the DG-AKIS after analyzing
the findings of the questionnaire. This framework was reviewed during a focus group discussion,
which was organized with 12 members who were previously invited to answer the questionnaire,
having two representatives from each actor. The focus group discussion was facilitated by the first
and third authors at Mansoura University. At the beginning of the discussion, a short presentation
explaining the purpose of the meeting and findings of the first stage was introduced. Frequency,
percentages, mean, and standard deviation were used to describe and present the results. Furthermore,
relative weight (%) was calculated as follows [41]:
P
Pi × wi
P
× 100.
n × Wmax
(1)
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
6 of 23
(Pi = Each parameter amount; Wi = Each parameter weight; Wmax = the maximum weight that
can belong to each parameter (2); and n = the number of each factor parameters).
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Importance of Strengthening the DG-AKIS in the Governorate
The actors’ views about the importance level of strengthening the DG-AKIS are illustrated in
Figure 2. The findings show that the overwhelming majority of the respondents in all actors were in the
category of very important and important. This result reflects the critical need to develop the current
situation of the DG-AKIS from the actors’ point of view. This is in line with the Egyptian strategic plan
2030’s goal to develop AKIS’ structural processes to enhance the competitiveness of the agricultural
sector and influence the direction and speed of co-innovation [40]. This result was also in consistence
with the study of Kamara et al. [42], who confirmed that actors give a high level of importance to
enhance the functioning of the existing AKIS toward innovation and food security in Sierra Leone.
Farmers
Cooperatives
Actors
Credit
Education& training
20.0
73.3
Research
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0.7
13.3
20.0
66.7
0%
0.7
33.3
60.0
Advisory
10.0
50.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
30.0
50.0
4.0
10.0
20.0
70.0
Private sector
12.0
18.0
66.0
90%
100%
Importance level
Very important
Important
Neutral
Unimportant
Very unimportant
Figure 2. Importance of strengthening the Dakhalia governorate (DG)-AKIS.
The actors perceived different advantages of developing the DG-AKIS, as shown in Figure 3.
The findings indicated that the aspects that are highly perceived (>80%) were those involved in
the strengthening of DG-AKIS governance (88%), improving international market access (84%),
and preventing anti-competitive practices in the market (81.6%). These results show that the existing
DG-AKIS face structural problems that inhibits it to innovate and achieve sustainable agriculture.
According to Pigford et al. [3], a well-designed AKIS is a key factor to better support the creation of
innovation niches, which allows to implement different approaches and paradigms, such as smart
farming, vertical farming, urban agriculture, bioeconomy, and local-based food systems. The findings
are in line with Abebe et al. [43], who indicated that AKIS support could be performed by implementing
reform processes that aim to improve information access, sharing, and utilization, as well as improving
access to market and credit from the farmers’ point of view.
Benefits
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
7 of 23
Preventing anti-competitive practices
Increasing economic growth rate
increasing and attracting investment
Enhancing knowledge exchange
Changing farmers' knowledge, attitudes, and…
Finding new solutions for agricultural problems
Enhancing coordination among AKIS actors
Boosting productivity to sustain income
Improving farmers' standard of living
Developing each actor within AKIS
Improving access to international markets
Establishing farmers' common interest groups
Strengthening governance of AKIS
0
81.6
52
79.2
39.2
57.6
79.2
73.6
76.8
74.4
68
84
44
88
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage of respodents
Figure 3. Main benefits gained from developing DG-AKIS.
4.2. Functions of Actors within the DG-AKIS
Actors presented their potential roles to develop DG-AKIS, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Results revealed that 16 functions were identified by more than half of the actors. Some of these functions
are accomplished by a collaboration between two actors or more, such as capacity building and training
(research and advisory), solving agricultural problems (research and education), coordination among
actors (advisory and cooperatives), financial support (credit and private sector), market linkages
(private sector and cooperatives), building social capital among farmers (advisory and cooperatives),
and natural resource management (cooperatives and farmers). Despite some of these functions being
performed by the actors for several years, the actors highlighted that there is an urgent need to
develop each function in terms of scope, quality of service, innovation, provisional methods and
tools, promising methods, and linkages. This finding is supported by Hermans et al. [7], who found
that each actor (or collaboration with other actors) performed one or two functions to spread their
innovation both horizontally and vertically. However, he classified the network functions of actors into
three main areas: (1) Learning and knowledge co-creation, (2) outscaling and innovation brokerage,
and (3) upscaling and institutional entrepreneurship.
4.3. Barriers for Innovation in the DG-AKIS
The findings in Figure 5 showed a number of barriers that may hamper the development of the
DG-AKIS. The complexity of legal and regulatory frameworks was ranked first as a main barrier
for developing the DG-AKIS, with a percentage of 92.2%, followed by lack of financial support or
incentives (76.8%), lack of awareness of the importance of DG-AKIS (64.8%), and the weak role of
intermediary organizations among actors (64%). The findings reflect the high need of a new governance
framework for the DG-AKIS. This includes legislative, informational, and organizational reform to
increase the complementarity and synergy among actors. In reviewing literature, many countries
have been facing complex problems to develop the AKIS. In Italy, Materia [44] revealed that the main
challenges that inhibit AKIS to meet the future needs of European agriculture include the lack of
an institutional coordination that engages both public/private institutions and research structures,
lack of investment in the skills of human resources, and lack of strategic studies that address demand
analysis and impact evaluation. A study conducted by Aerni et al. [45] in the tropical regions of
Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Central America showed that the major challenges for
innovation include insufficient access to innovation, inadequate participation in innovation meetings,
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
8 of 23
environmental factors (desertification and climate change), and lack of accessible markets for value
added products. Furthermore, Hermans et al. [28] confirmed that many innovation policies in
the Netherlands are rather complex and not particularly well-suited to support collaboration and
networking. Finally, a study conducted in Ethiopia by Kebebe [46] showed that missing innovation
functions, such as entrepreneurship, knowledge diffusion, market development, and policy advocacy
prevent stakeholders from taking advantage of productivity and profit opportunities offered by
agricultural technology.
120
% Implementation
100
100
80
100
100 100 100
80.0
73.3
73.3
100
100
100
80.0
73.3
60.0
60
100
70.0
60.0
53.3
76.0
70.0
62.0
60.0
50.0
40
20
Research
Advisory
Education
Credit
Private
sector
Cooperatives
Natural resource management
Boosting productivity
Improving crop quality
Natural resource management
Building social capital among farmers
Agricultural input subsidies
Coordination among actors
Linking to markets
Financial support
Capacity building &training
Linking to markets
Financial support
Solving agricultural problems
Capacity building &training
Solving agricultural problems
Knowledge repository & updating
Coordination among actors
Transfering problems to research
Building social capital among farmers
Technology transfer and diffusion
Capacity building &training
Solving agricultural problems
Knowledge development
0
Farmers
Roles of actors
Figure 4. Potential roles of each actor in developing the DG-AKIS.
Reviewing the AKIS’s case studies worldwide showed significant actions to overcome particular
problems or barriers. According to EU report [47], supporting AKIS functions received special attention
in Post-2020 EU programming period (2021–2027). This strategy includes four main groups of actions:
Supporting the digital transition in agriculture; enhancing cross-thematic and cross-border interactive
innovation; enhancing knowledge flows and strengthening links between research and practice;
and strengthening advisory services and fostering their interconnection within the AKIS. Financing
innovation and research is another challenge face developing AKIS. It takes different forms across the
countries. Co-financing in New Zealand is one example on how to invest in research and innovation
programs for improving sustainability in agri-food sector. The primary growth partnership (PGP)
involves two ministries (the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment and the Ministry
of Primary Industries) and industry. An amount of NZD 70 million is invested annually by the
government and industry. The PGP makes investments throughout the value chain, including research
and development, technology transfer, education and skills development, product development,
and commercial development [48]. Levy-based funding is another tool employed by South Africa,
New Zealand, and The Netherlands. It tends to emphasize downstream solutions for the agricultural
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
9 of 23
sector by pooling resources and fund research and development specific for sector solutions.
Furthermore, many case studies are moving toward competitive funds with clearly articulated
government goals [49].
44.8
The high need for clear consortia-based agenda
64
Barriers
The weakness of intermediary oganizations
64.8
The lack of awareness of importance of AKIS
76.8
The lack of financial support or incentives
95.2
Complexity of legal and regulatory frameworks
48.8
Inactivating use of ICT platforms
50.4
The lack of governmental support
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of respondents
Figure 5. Barriers to the development of the DG-AKIS.
4.4. Linkages between the DG-AKIS Actors
The importance level of each linkage suggested to support the coordination and cooperation
between actors is presented in Table 1. The results revealed that all linkages were in the category of high
and moderate level of importance. The most important linkages, in descending order, were contracting
(91.2%), partnerships (83.3%), activities (81.2%), and networks (80.9%). These results reflect the
importance of implementing these different linkages according to the nature of relationships among
actors. For more clarification, the potential linkage matrix between each two actors is illustrated in
Table 2. Obviously, the number of potential linkages between two actors differed in terms of the
services provided, size of finance, stakeholders, and scope of work.
The results showed that linkages, such as contracting, is viewed as highly important for financing
innovation. As evidenced by Blum et al. [50], contracting with the private sector for service provision is
not only more effective and efficient than public delivery of services, but also enhances the coordination
between actors, increases innovation demands, and strengthens stakeholder involvement and capacities.
One of the several forms of contracting is contract farming. Numerous studies have indicated the
positive social and economic impact of contract farming in supporting vertical coordination. It enhances
the farmers’ productivity and quality of agricultural products, promotes farmers’ participation
in the agricultural value chain, minimizes transaction costs, creates new marketing channels,
and effectively supports the interactions between actors [41–54]. Furthermore, the respondents
confirmed that partnerships may act as systemic policy instruments to enhance the linkages between
actors. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are not focused on a particular actor; thereby targeting
complex problems within the AKIS from a systems perspective [55]. This could be achieved
by combining the capabilities of the private sector with the intellectual resources of research
institutes [56]. According to Hermans et al. [18], there are several public benefits of partnering, including
environmental and/or social benefits from sustainability innovations, contribution to economic growth,
contribution to the knowledge economy, and increased employment opportunities. On another note,
private benefits of partnering include increased production and productivity, reduction of costs and risks,
and development of new products and market opportunities.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
10 of 23
Table 1. Importance of each linkage from the actors’ perspectives.
Linkages
Research
Education
Advisory
Private Sector
Cooperatives
Credit
Farmers
Overall Average
Rank
Contracting
100
100
86.7
90
70
100
92
91.2
1
Partnership
93.3
100
100
80
60
50
84
83.3
2
Platforms
46.7
80
80
100
70
100
66
77.5
5
Networks
93.3
100
100
80
60
60
72.8
80.9
4
Alliance
46.7
33.3
73.3
100
40
70
84
63.9
8
Advocacy linkages
40
40
66.7
60
40
70
70
55.3
9
Solidarity
53.4
93.3
50
70
40
100
96
71.8
7
Coordination committees
53.4
93.3
70
60
90
100
60
75.3
6
Activities (workshops,
advisory programs,
research projects,
campaigns, etc.)
46.7
80
80
100
70
100
36
81.2
3
Table 2. Potential linkage mechanisms among actors of the DG-AKIS.
Actors
Research
Education
Advisory
Private Sector
Cooperatives
Credit
Farmers
Research
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Education
Partnership-contractingnetworks-alliance-platforms
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advisory
Contracting-Partnershipsplatforms
Networks-activities
platforms
-
-
-
-
-
Private sector
Partnerships-Networks
Partnerships-Activities
Partnerships-Networks
-Activities
-
-
-
-
Cooperatives
Contracting
Contracting-Activities
Partnerships
Contracting
-
-
-
Credit
Contracting
Contracting-Activities
Contracting
Financing
Partnership
Financing-Solidarity
-
Farmers
Contracting-platforms
Contracting-Activitiesplatforms
Contracting-Solidarityplatforms
Contracting-Solidarityplatforms
Contracting-Solidarity
Financing-Solidarity
-
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
11 of 23
4.5. Requirements of Innovation in the DG-AKIS
The requirement availability of each actor to meet future needs of the DG-AKIS is presented
in Table 3. The findings indicate that except for private sector and credit, the other actors indicated
moderate and low level of availability regarding the requirements under investigation. Moreover,
each requirement was noticeably not available for all actors. At the same time, each actor cannot achieve
all requirements. This reflects the aim of AKIS development, which gives opportunity to integration
by combining the capabilities of actors to achieve technological, social, and institutional changes.
Several studies have examined the innovation requirements for agricultural sustainability. In Italy,
Pascucci and de-Magistris [57] showed that knowledge and innovation, improved quality of advisory
services within the regional AKIS, and support interaction between actors are most important areas to
AKIS development. In this context, Turner et al. [12] presented blocking mechanisms that negatively
influence the direction and speed of co-innovation in the New Zealand AKIS. These mechanisms
included (i) competitive science in silos, (ii) laissez-faire innovation, and (iii) science-centered innovation.
In the same sense, Minah [17] confirmed that the AKIS in Vietnam’s northern uplands need to
enhance its structural performance by implementing the following requirements: Knowledge and
innovation, physical and funding infrastructure, developing capabilities and accountability of actors,
increasing number of intermediary actors, and interactions among a broad range of actors.
Table 3. The availability of the requirements of sustainable agriculture at each actor.
Research
Education
Advisory
Private Sector
Cooperatives
Credit
Farmers
Knowledge and
technology
100
100
44.4
100
33.3
×
66
Governance
57.8
88
33.3
100
33.3
93.3
×
Training and capacity
building
62.2
93.3
33.3
93.3
33.3
×
×
Input subsidies
×
×
×
×
40
×
×
Credit support and
financing
×
×
×
×
×
90
×
Self-help
44.4
57.8
×
93.3
33.3
×
×
Risk management
×
×
×
90
×
×
×
Access to local and
international markets
×
×
×
96.7
×
×
70.7
Mobilization of
investment
×
×
×
90
×
×
×
Environmental
sustainability
×
×
×
×
33.3
×
×
Sustain income,
quality, and
production
×
×
×
96.7
×
×
74.7
Quality control
systems
33.3
×
×
86.7
×
×
×
Coordination among
actors
×
40
40
66.6
36.7
×
×
Power of bargaining
×
×
×
83.3
43.3
×
×
Effective advisory
services
×
33.3
33.3
×
×
×
×
(×) not available, as mentioned by the actors.
The foregoing results reflect the critical need for building the actors’ capacity by adopting new
innovation approaches and paradigms to achieve such requirements. The actors surveyed determined
the importance level of the innovation approaches to achieve innovation requirements within the
DG-AKIS (Figure 6), as well as the requirement availability level of sustainable agriculture for each
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
12 of 23
innovation approach (Table 4). The actors prioritized smart farming, good agricultural practices,
and value chain development to be implemented or to increase the scale within DG-AKIS along with
several innovations. However, the transformation to future agri-food systems requires transition to new
disruptive technologies and perspectives [58]. These include trends associated with Agriculture 4.0
and AgriTech, such as nanotechnology application, genome editing, alternative plant, or insect-based
proteins, cellular agriculture, synthetic food production, aquaponics, vertical agriculture, and smart
farming technologies (artificial intelligence, robotization, internet of things, and drones) [59–65]. At the
same time, there are other paradigms less associated with high-tech methods, such as social farming,
community supported agriculture, urban farming, care farming, agro-ecology, and regenerative
agriculture [66–68]. Such trends guide the direction of transitions and investments in the AKIS [3,69].
There are different case studies on how governments invest in the agri-food value chain innovation
to enhance its competitiveness. Andalucía initiative in Spain is one of the examples to show how
IoT technology can improve quality and increase yield. This platform involves the use of sensor
data, cloud-based systems for monitoring, and early warning systems to control pests/diseases [70].
Farmlab 2030 was another emerging approach in Portugal. It is a collaborative laboratory for
the agriculture sector for monitoring, data sharing, and certification system. This initiative has
a focus on bigger farms to increase the recognition and credibility of farms [71]. In the same vein,
Teagasc is a new mechanism to support the advisory services across Ireland by a range of digital tools.
This management decision support tool is used by more than 3000 farms across Ireland by combining
data from different sources [72]. Furthermore, France developed a national database combined to
innovative ICT tools in the poultry sector called “BD Avicoleis”. It is aimed to establish the traceability
all along the production for poultry industries to increase productivity and quality [71].
Importance level
120
100
80
100
100
100
91.7
65.3
71.5
77.3
91.2
69.1
60
40
20
0
Innovation approaches
Figure 6. Importance of innovation approaches to the DG-AKIS.
4.6. Suggested Framework for Developing DG-AKIS
We suggested a framework for developing DG-AKIS as presented in Figure 7 according to the
foregoing results and the findings of the focus group discussion. This framework is aimed to achieve six
main objectives including, activating interaction mechanisms among the DG-AKIS actors, supporting
information flow among the DG-AKIS actors, meeting the needs and requirements of sustainable
agriculture, improving the standard of living, sustainable rural development, and food security,
generalizing the idea of strengthening the DG-AKIS in the other governorates, and finally modernizing
Egyptian agriculture.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
13 of 23
Table 4. Availability of the requirements of sustainable agriculture in each approach.
Requirements
Smart
Farming
Good
Agricultural
Practices (GAP)
Value Chain
Development
Urban
Agriculture
Nanotechnology
Application
Contract
Farming
Organic
Farming
Vertical
Farming
Knowledge and technology
•
•
•
•
•
×
•
•
•
Governance
•
•
•
•
×
•
×
×
×
Aquaponics
Training and capacity building
•
×
•
•
•
×
×
×
×
Input supplies subsidies
×
×
•
•
×
•
×
×
×
Credit support and financing
•
×
×
×
•
×
×
×
×
Self-help
×
×
×
•
×
×
×
×
×
Risk management
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
Availability of markets and access
×
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mobilization of investment
•
×
×
•
•
×
×
×
×
Environmental sustainability
•
•
×
•
•
×
•
•
•
Sustain income, quality, and production
•
•
×
•
•
×
•
•
•
Quality control systems
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coordination among actors
×
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Power of bargaining
×
•
•
×
×
•
×
×
×
Effective advisory services
•
•
×
•
•
×
•
•
•
Source: Authors’ elaboration; (•) available; (×) not available.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
14 of 23
Farmers
Research
Credit
Education
Private sector
Cooperatives
Actors
Advisory
Linkage
Public agricultural policy
Coordination Unit
• Strategy development and priority setting
interactions
Innovation policy analysis
Design and implementation
Requirements of innovation
Requirements of
innovation and
technologies
Technologies & paradigms
• Knowledge and innovation
• Smart farming
• Governance
• Urban farming
• Capacity building & training
• Vertical farming
• Self-help
• Nanotechnology
• Effective advisory services
• Organic farming
• Input supplies subsidies
• Aquaponics
• Coordination among actors
• Contract farming
Figure 7. Suggested framework for developing the DG-AKIS.
Figure 7. Suggested framework for developing the DG-AKIS.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
15 of 23
The structural dimensions of the framework included the following three components.
4.6.1. Actors
All actors surveyed (research, education, advisory, private sector, cooperatives, credit, and farmers)
are involved in each innovation approach by utilizing the available strong points of the requirements
needed for successful implementation. The specific roles of each actor within DG-AKIS are illustrated
in Appendix A.
4.6.2. Interaction Linkages
This dimension includes interacting linkages to ensure synergy and complementarity among the
DG-AKIS actors, such as networks, partnerships, contracting, transactions, and activities. The suitable
linkage mechanisms among the actors that were revealed from the conclusion drawn from the results
of the focus group discussion are illustrated in Appendix A. In the case of PPPs, the partnership
protocol will be prepared between public entities (research–education–extension) and private entities
(companies–agricultural bank–cooperatives–farmers). The local government will be playing a key
role in sustaining a partnership by following the solidarity mechanism for all DG-AKIS actors.
At this level, interaction linkages will be supported and guided by the coordination unit. This unit
will be established at the governorate level with representatives from each actor. According to the
findings of the focus group discussion, five key functions of the DG-AKIS Coordination Unit were
identified, such as strategy development and priority setting; innovation policy analysis; design and
implementation; managing programs and resources; and innovation financing, including innovation
system management, information management, and knowledge sharing. During the focus group
discussion, actors mentioned two challenges that should be addressed to achieve the unit’s functions.
The first issue is designing a digital platform to facilitate knowledge exchange among the DG-AKIS
actors and announce new events. Furthermore, designing suitable structures for each linkage based
on the legislative and regulatory framework to ensure mutual cooperation and coordination among
the actors.
Some countries have established core networks to facilitate the governance of the AKIS at
national and regional levels. These networks include a Ministry coordinating unit similar to the
one proposed in this study, in which different entities are grouped by the level of coordination
at which they work. In Canada, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada (AAFC) (Ministry-level),
Agri-Innovators Committee (Advisory Committees to Ministry-level), Provincial departments of
agriculture (Agency-level Coordination), and Value Chain Roundtables (Industry-level) are grouped
together to form a core network [73]. In the Netherlands, Ministry of Economics, Agriculture,
and Innovation (Ministry-level), Knowledge Chambers Advisory Council for Science and Technology,
The Council for Environment and Infrastructure, Innovation Network (Advisory Committees
to Ministry-level), and Top Sectors, Bioconnect (among others), Levy-based funding
mechanisms (Industry-level) are integrated in a core network administrated by a coordinating
unit [72]. Another example of integration in South Africa; Department of Science and
Technology (DST), Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (DAFF) (Ministry-level),
National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI), National Agricultural Research Forum
(NARF) Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), Agricultural Research
Council (ARC) (Advisory Committees to Ministry-level), Technology Innovation Agency (TIA)
(Agency-level Coordination), and Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) (Industry level) [74].
4.6.3. Requirements of Innovation and Technologies
This dimension involves nine innovation approaches to achieve sustainable agriculture,
such as smart farming, nanotechnology, vertical farming, aquaponics, organic farming, contract farming,
urban agriculture, value chain development, and GAP. To better implement such technologies,
different requirements should be available to modernize Egyptian agriculture. According to the study’s
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
16 of 23
findings, 13 main requirements are essential as follows: Knowledge and innovation, governance,
capacity building and training, subsidizing input supply, credit support and finance, self-help,
risk management, market access, effective advisory services, coordination among actors, quality control
systems, environmental sustainability, and mobilizing agricultural investments.
There are some limitations associated with the implementation of the framework. This framework
is extremely difficult to be activated without establishing some procedures. These procedures
include setting a national strategy to support the DG-AKIS activities and obligating each
actor to cooperate according to a preliminary testing format. Another procedure is suggesting
protocols/agreements/contracts among DG-AKIS actors. These arrangements should specify the
needed functions, whereas each actor should execute a particular node. Moreover, it must include
setting attainable initiatives to build the capacity of each actor with assistance from other actors.
Finally, a supervision system should be formed by the support unit to monitor and evaluate the
executed activities and determine their social and economic impacts. The next biggest limitation is
the sustainable finance. Accumulating sufficient funds to implement all the suggested activities is
crucial to strengthen the framework. There are different sources of funding that could be utilized
to finance DG-AKIS activities, such as public finance, international funds (donor organizations for
research projects, etc.), private finance (private sector, cooperatives), credit facilities and loans from
agricultural banks, and self-finance utilizing the cost-sharing approach.
However, our study had some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, we collected data
from seven actors and did not include other actors involved in the DG-AKIS, so we could not present
the holistic picture of innovation processes undertaken within the DG-AKIS. Second, we were unable to
assess infrastructure of actors as one of main structural dimensions. This has an effect on exploring the
actors’ capability to interact and determine the capacity building that is needed. Third, the presented
conceptual framework was only reviewed by a few groups of actors rather than experts in the field or
policy makers. Thus, it is considered as a preliminary model for discussing, reviewing, and modifying.
5. Conclusions
The present study offers new insights for strengthening the interaction linkages within regional
AKIS in Egypt, as perceived by a range of actors, such as farmers, cooperatives, research, advisory,
credit, education, and private sector. The contribution of this paper is two-fold; first, providing insights
into the functioning of a regional AKIS. Second, it deepens the literature on structural–functional
innovation systems analysis by suggesting a framework that illustrates how regional dimensions,
coupled with structural elements, could enhance the functioning of a regional AKIS. The multi-actor
approach used in this study allowed us to obtain information on innovation processes that was
relevant to diverse actors and structural dimensions of the system. Results indicated that the actors
had a positive view toward developing the DG-AKIS. Potential roles mentioned by the actors to
strengthen this system confirm three main points; upgrading the DG-AKIS ensures benefits for all actors,
tasks specificity ensures efficient and effective performance of roles and tasks, and weak points in each
actor could be complemented by strong points of other actors. Actors also perceived a broad range
of barriers to development. Partially, these barriers could be overcome by a better design of linkage
interactions between the actors, capacity building of actors in terms of the innovation requirements
in the agricultural sector, and adoption of new emerging technologies. It was also concluded that
PPPs are the most suitable interaction linkage from the actors’ point of view. These partnerships
could be effective between partners if it well prepared in a formal way and the local government
implements the solidarity mechanism in case of conflicts. The current level of the requirements of
sustainable agriculture in each innovation approach identified by the actors reflects the gaps that
should be taken into account to formulate capacity building strategies for supporting innovation
processes within the DG-AKIS. The findings of the focus group discussion confirm that coordination in
innovation systems relies on governance. In other words, there is a need for a coordination unit in the
DG-AKIS. This unit could enhance the policy coordination, which is concerned the determination of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
17 of 23
priorities, the development of a clear, consistent, and agreed set of policies, and putting these policies
into practice. Furthermore, supporting administrative coordination, which concerns the problem of
synergy and complementarity among actors. Consequently, the outcome of coordination unit could
be seen in different ways such as increase the efficiency of funding in the short term, manage the
issues related to agricultural innovation, and integrating institutions. The study also revealed that
the proposed framework can be used as a tool to link functions to the structure of an innovation
system. This framework can be empirically implemented to enhance the synergy and complementarity
among the AKIS actors. To achieve that, the study recommends some essential procedures that should
be implemented, including collecting data at all levels of the suggested framework, improving the
availability of a conducive environment in achieving the principles of synergy and complementarity
among actors, formalizing a contract form regarding each linkage mechanism, testing this format in a
specific geographical area, and summarizing the learned lessons. Further research is recommended to
assess and analyze whether innovation processes are affected by the scale of the different infrastructural
dimensions (research and development, financial, or physical) of actors.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology Y.Z., writing—original draft preparation H.S.K.;
data management and analysis S.M.N., writing—review and editing B.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research,
King Saud University, Saudi Arabia for funding this research through Research Group No. (RGP–1440-006).
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research and RSSU at the King Saud
University for their technical support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Suggested linkage mechanisms among the DG-AKIS actors based on the suggested framework.
Advisory
Private
Sector
Cooperatives
Farmers
-
-
-
-
-
Paternalistic
Activities
-
-
-
Networks
Private
sector
Contractingpartnerships
Activities
Networks
-
Contractingactivitiespartnerships
Contractingactivitiespartnerships
Cooperatives
Contracting
Activities
Partnerships
Contracting
-
Contracting
Financial
Financial
Financial
Financial
transactions
transactions
transactions
transactions
Contracting
Contracting
Contracting
-
Actors
Research
Education
Research
-
Activities
Education &
training
Partnership
Advisory
Credit
Farmers
Financial
transactions
Activities
Activities
Activities
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
18 of 23
Table A2. Tasks of DG-AKIS actors based on the suggested framework.
Actors
Representatives (Governorate Level)
Tasks
Research
-
Horticulture research station.
Soil, water, and environment research station.
Plant protection research station.
Animal production research station.
Field crops research station.
Food technology research station.
Cotton research station.
Agricultural engineering research station.
-
Production of agricultural innovations.
Capacity building & training.
Solving agricultural problems.
Provision of consultancy services.
Education
-
Faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University.
Secondary Agricultural schools.
Development Support Communication Centre.
-
Production of agricultural innovations.
Capacity building & training.
Preparing qualified graduates to labor force.
Applied education based on new research outcomes.
-
Technology transfer.
Transferring problems to research.
Broker among AKIS actors.
Provision recommendations to the farmers.
Giving assistance in farm management.
Monitoring and evaluation implementing recommendations.
Planning, implementing, and evaluation of different extension
methods and programs.
-
Provision of input supplies.
Provision of technological facilities.
Linking to local and international markets.
Capacity building & training.
Investment.
Financial support for other actors.
Advisory
-
Extension centers.
Extension department at agricultural directorates.
Private sector
-
Agricultural companies.
Export companies.
Packaging plants
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
19 of 23
Table A2. Cont.
Actors
Cooperatives
Credit
Farmers
Representatives (Governorate Level)
-
Directorate of agricultural cooperatives.
Central agricultural cooperatives.
Agricultural cooperatives.
-
Agricultural bank in the governorate and its
branches in (12) districts.
-
Farmers in the governorate.
Tasks
-
Provision and subsidizing input supplies.
Linking farmers to markets.
Provision of agricultural machinery.
Broker among AKIS actors.
Financial support and loans to other actors.
Technical services.
Social services (women empowerment- Environment protection
. . . etc.)
-
Financial transactions (credit facilities- deposit- withdrawalloans . . . etc.)
-
Implementation of recommendations.
Increasing productivity.
Enhancing crop quality.
Application of disruptive technologies.
Conservation of natural resources.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
20 of 23
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
World Bank. Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook; The World Bank: Washington, DC,
USA, 2012.
Läpple, D.; Renwick, A.; Cullinan, J.; Thorne, F. What drives innovation in the agricultural sector? A spatial
analysis of knowledge spillovers. Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 238–250. [CrossRef]
Pigford, A.A.E.; Hickey, G.M.; Klerkx, L. Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural
innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agric. Syst.
2018, 164, 116–121. [CrossRef]
Gava, O.; Favilli, E.; Bartolini, F.; Brunori, G. Knowledge networks and their role in shaping the relations
within the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in the agroenergy sector. The case of biogas in
Tuscany (Italy). J. Rural Stud. 2017, 56, 100–113. [CrossRef]
FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2016 (SOFA): Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security; FAO:
Rome, Italy, 2016.
Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS). Agricultural Innovation Systems. 2019. Available
online: https://www.g-fras.org/en/good-practice-notes/agricultural-innovation-systems.html (accessed on
5 January 2020).
Hermans, F.; Stuiver, M.; Beers, P.J.; Kok, K. The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and
outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst. 2013, 115, 117–128. [CrossRef]
Leeuwis, C.; Van den Ban, A.W. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension;
Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2004.
Hall, A.; Janssen, W.; Pehu, E.; Rajalahti, R. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the
Strengthening of Research Systems; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
Rajalahti, R.; Janssen, W.; Pehu, E. Agricultural Innovation Systems: From Diagnostics toward Operational Practices;
Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 38; Agriculture & Rural Development Department,
The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
Oliveira, M.D.F.; Gomes da Silva, F.; Ferreira, S.; Teixeira, M.; Damásio, H.; Dinis Ferreira, A.; Gonçalves, J.M.
Innovations in sustainable agriculture: Case study of Lis Valley irrigation district, Portugal. Sustainability
2019, 11, 331. [CrossRef]
Turner, J.A.; Klerkx, L.; Rijswijk, K.; Williams, T.; Barnard, T. Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in
the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying
institutional logics. NJAS Wagen. J. Life Sci. 2016, 76, 99–112. [CrossRef]
EU. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition: A Reflection Paper; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
Kebebe, E.; Duncan, A.J.; Klerkx, L.; De Boer, I.J.M.; Osting, S.J. Understanding socio-economic and policy
constraints to dairy development in Ethiopia: A coupled functional-structural innovation systems analysis.
Agric. Syst. 2015, 141, 69–78. [CrossRef]
Klerkx, L.; Van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C. Evolution of Systems Approaches to Agricultural Innovation: Concepts,
Analysis and Interventions; Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2012; pp. 457–483.
Ortiz, O.; Orrego, R.; Pradel, W.; Gildemacher, P.; Castillo, R.; Otiniano, R.; Gabriel, J.; Vallejo, J.; Torres, O.;
Woldegiorgis, G.; et al. Insights into potato innovation systems in Bolivia, Ethiopia, Peru and Uganda.
Agric. Syst. 2013, 114, 73–83. [CrossRef]
Minh, T.T. Unpacking the systemic problems and blocking mechanisms of a regional agricultural innovation
system: An integrated regional-functional-structural analysis. Agric. Syst. 2019, 173, 268–280. [CrossRef]
Hermans, F.; Geerling-Eiff, F.; Potters, J.; Klerkx, L. Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural
innovation policy instruments–Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics.
NJAS Wagen. J. Life Sci. 2019, 88, 76–95. [CrossRef]
Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR). Agricultural Innovation System of Egypt: An Overview;
MALR: Cairo, Egypt, 2018.
Abdel-Ghany, M.M.; Diab, A.M. Reforming agricultural extension in Egypt from the viewpoint of central
level extension employees. Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 21, 143–154. [CrossRef]
Diab, A.M. Analysis of the Agricultural Innovation System in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis,
Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, 2012.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
21 of 23
Diab, A.M. Assessment of linkages and information flow in the agricultural innovation system in the New
Valley governorate, Egypt. Arab Univ. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 23, 143–154.
Kassem, H.S. The determinants of private sector’s role in promoting agricultural knowledge and information
system in Dakhlia Governorate, Egypt. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2016, 26, 1429–1435.
McDonough, C.P. The Application of Participatory Extension through Agricultural Innovation Systems in
the Middle East. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 2019.
Zahran, Y.A.; Yousef, E.; Kassem, H.S.; Naba, S.M. Acceptance availability of agricultural knowledge
system actors in El-Dakahlia governorate for integration and coordination assumptions & its local apply
opportunities. J. Agric. Econom. Soc. Sci. 2016, 7, 105–110.
Asheim, B.T.; Gertler, M.S. The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In The Oxford
Handbook of Innovation; Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005;
pp. 291–317.
Spielman, D.J.; Birner, R. How Innovative is Your Agriculture? Using Innovation Indicators and Benchmarks to
Strengthen National Agricultural Innovation Systems; Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper;
The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
Naba, S.M. Determinants of Building and Activating Agricultural Knowledge and Information System in
Dakhalia Governorate. Ph.D. Thesis, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt, 2016.
Hermans, F.; Klerkx, L.; Roep, D. Structural conditions for collaboration and learning in innovation networks:
Using an innovation system performance lens to analyse agricultural knowledge systems. J. Agrc. Educ. Ext.
2015, 21, 35–54. [CrossRef]
Beers, P.J.; Geerling-Eiff, F. Networks as policy instruments for innovation. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2013, 20, 1–17.
[CrossRef]
Kassem, H.S.; Aldosari, F.O.; Baig, M.B.; Muneer, S.; Elmajem, A.N. Researchers’ and extension workers’
perspectives on agricultural research-extension linkages in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. Anim. Plant Sci.
2018, 28, 1516–1522.
Francis, J.; van Huis, A. Why focus on innovation systems: Implications for research and policy.
In Innovation Systems: Towards Effective Strategies in Support of Smallholder Farmers; Francis, J., Mytelka, L.,
van Huis, A., Röling, N., Eds.; The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA):
Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016.
EU. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems towards the Future: A Foresight Paper; EU: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
FAO. Innovative Risk Management Strategies in Rural and Agriculture Finance; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017.
Demiryurek, K. Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems and social communication networks.
In Agricultural Extension and Consultacy: Agricultural Extension and Consulting Methodology; Chapter 12;
Sayılı, M., Oruç, E., Günal, H., Önen, H., Eds.; Gaziosmanpaşa University: Tokat, Turkey, 2014; Volume II,
pp. 299–320.
Anandajayasekeram, P. The role of agricultural R&D within the agricultural innovation systems framework.
In Proceedings of the Agricultural R&D: Investing in Africa’s Future ASTI/FARA Conference, Accra, Ghana,
5–7 December 2011; p. 40.
Weber, K.M.; Rohracher, H. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative
change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive
‘failures’ framework. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1037–1047. [CrossRef]
Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS). Statistical Report of Egypt; CAPMAS:
Cairo, Egypt, 2018.
Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR). Agricultural Statistical Book; MALR: Cairo, Egypt, 2019.
Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MALR). National Strategic Plan 2030; Agricultural Research
Center (ARC), MALR: Cairo, Egypt, 2016.
Khoshnodifar, Z.; Sookhtanlo, M.; Gholami, H. Identification and measurement of indicators of drought
vulnerability among wheat farmers in Mashhad County, Iran. Ann. Biol. Res. 2012, 3, 4593–4600.
Kamara, L.I.; Dorward, P.; Lalani, B.; Wauters, E. Unpacking the drivers behind the use of the agricultural
innovation systems (AIS) approach: The case of rice research and extension professionals in Sierra Leone.
Agric. Syst. 2019, 176, 102673. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
22 of 23
Abebe, G.K.; Bijman, J.; Pascucci, S.; Omta, O. Adoption of improved potato varieties in Ethiopia: The role of
agricultural knowledge and innovation system and smallholder farmers’ quality assessment. Agric. Syst.
2013, 122, 22–32. [CrossRef]
Materia, V.C. The Agricultural knowledge and innovation system in Italy: Dynamics, incentives,
monitoring and evaluation experiences. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2012, 114, 71–78. [CrossRef]
Aerni, P.; Nichterlein, K.; Rudgard, S.; Sonnino, A. Making agricultural innovation systems (AIS) work for
development in tropical countries. Sustainability 2015, 7, 831–850. [CrossRef]
Kebebe, E. Bridging technology adoption gaps in livestock sector in Ethiopia: A innovation system perspective.
Technol. Soc. 2019, 57, 30–37. [CrossRef]
EU SCAR AKIS. Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
OECD. Fostering Green Growth in Agriculture. The Role of Training, Advisory Services and Extension Initiatives;
OECD Green Growth Studies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015.
Ziderman, A. Funding mechanisms for financing vocational training: An analytical framework. In Education
Finance, Equality, and Equity; BenDavid-Hadar, I., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 135–164.
Blum, M.L.; Cofini, F.; Suliaman, V.R. Agricultural Extension in Transition Worldwide: Policies and Strategies
for Reform, Rome; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020.
Ba, H.A.; de Mey, Y.; Thoron, S.; Demont, M. Inclusiveness of contract farming along the vertical coordination
continuum: Evidence from the Vietnamese rice sector. Land Use Policy 2019, 87, 104050. [CrossRef]
Lambrecht, I.B.; Ragasa, C. Do development projects crowd-out private sector activities? Evidence from
contract farming participation in Northern Ghana. Food Policy 2018, 74, 9–22. [CrossRef]
Soullier, G.; Moustier, P. Impacts of contract farming in domestic grain chains on farmer income and food
insecurity. Contrasted evidence from Senegal. Food Policy 2018, 79, 179–198. [CrossRef]
Ton, G.; Vellema, W.; Desiere, S.; Weituschat, S.; D’Haese, M. Contract farming for improving smallholder
incomes: What can we learn from effectiveness studies? World Dev. 2018, 104, 46–64. [CrossRef]
Crespi, F.; Quatraro, F. Systemic technology policies: Issues and instruments. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
2013, 80, 1447–1449. [CrossRef]
Spielman, D.J.; Hartwich, F.; Grebmer, K. Public–private partnerships and developing-country agriculture:
Evidence from the international agricultural research system. Public Admin. Dev. 2010, 30, 261–276.
[CrossRef]
Pascucci, S.; de-Magistris, T. The effects of changing regional Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System
on Italian farmers’ strategies. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 746–754. [CrossRef]
Klerkx, L. Advisory services and transformation, plurality and disruption of agriculture and food systems:
Towards a new research agenda for agricultural education and extension studies. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2020,
26, 131–140. [CrossRef]
Bekker, G.A.; Fischer, A.R.; Tobi, H.; van Trijp, H.C. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food
technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite 2017, 108, 245–254. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Burton, R.J.F. The potential impact of synthetic animal protein on livestock production: The new war against
agriculture? J. Rural Stud. 2019, 68, 33–45. [CrossRef]
Clerq, D.; Vats, A.; Biel, A. Agriculture 4.0: The Future of Farming Technology. World Government Summit. 2018.
Available online: https://www.decipher.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/Agriculture-4.0-The-Future-ofFarming-Technology.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2019).
de Amorim, W.S.; Deggau, B.A.; Gonçalves, G.D.; Neiva, S.D.; Prasath, A.R.; Guerra, J.B. Urban challenges
and opportunities to promote sustainable food security through smart cities and the 4th industrial revolution.
Land Use Policy 2019, 87, 104065. [CrossRef]
Klerkx, L.; Rose, D. Dealing with the game-changing technologies of agriculture 4.0: How do we manage
diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 24, 100347. [CrossRef]
Tziva, M.; Negro, S.O.; Kalfagianni, A.; Hekkert, M.P. Understanding the protein transition: The rise of
plant-based meat substitutes. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 35, 217–231. [CrossRef]
Van Dijk, H.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Marvin, H.J.P.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Determinants of stakeholders’ attitudes
toward a new technology: Nanotechnology applications for food, water, energy, and medicine. J. Risk Res.
2017, 20, 277–298. [CrossRef]
Dell’Olio, M.; Hassink, J.; Vaandrager, L. The development of social farming in Italy: A qualitative inquiry
across four regions. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 56, 65–75. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
23 of 23
Hassink, J.; Grin, J.; Hulsink, W. Multifunctional agriculture meets health care: Applying the multi-level
transition sciences perspective to care farming in the Netherlands. Sociol. Rural 2013, 53, 223–245. [CrossRef]
Pölling, B.; Mergenthaler, M.; Lorleberg, W. Professional urban agriculture and its characteristic business
models in Metropolis Ruhr, Germany. Land Use Policy 2016, 58, 366–379. [CrossRef]
Hekkert, M.P.; Janssen, M.J.; Wesseling, J.H.; Negro, S.O. Mission-oriented innovation systems.
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 34, 76–79. [CrossRef]
Esparcia, J.; Mena, M.; Escribano, J. AKIS and Advisory Services in Spain. Report for the AKIS Inventory
(WP3) of the PRO AKIS Project. 2014. Available online: www.proakis.eu/publicationsandevents/pubs
(accessed on 5 August 2019).
World Bank. Towards Optimal Coordination of the Chilean Agricultural Innovation System: Design for a MINAGRI
Agricultural Innovation Coordination Unit; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
Prager, K.; Thomson, K. AKIS and Advisory Services in the Republic of Ireland. Report for the AKIS Inventory
(WP3) of the PRO AKIS Project. 2014. Available online: www.proakis.eu/publicationsandevents/pubs
(accessed on 5 August 2019).
AIC. An Overview of the Canadian Agricultural Innovation System; Agricultural Institute of Canada:
Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2017.
Bokako, B.M. A Framework for Agricultural Innovation Systems in South Africa. Master’s Thesis,
Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa, 2015.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).