Innovation in rural areas depends upon several factors. One of the most important of those is the technology transfer and how it takes place. Referring to the “long waves” theory on the technological revolutions, since the first agricultural revolution to the one we are experiencing today, some indicators, held together, can establish the relevance of innovations for each revolution. This approach, based on a comparison between agricultural systems, starts from a SWOT analysis to make a matrix table created and inspired to the smart specialization strategies on high technology farming of European Commission on research and innovation on the Agrofood sector. The aim of this work was to build a conceptual framework to understand if the frenzy period of precision agriculture could be a chance mostly in terms of sustainability. This paper highlights on a first approach to delineate some guidelines in order to provide feasible technological transferring for every kind of agriculture system.
Nowadays it is possible to make an evaluation of what and how innovation and technologies in rural areas spread through industrializes centuries. There are different economic theories that explain the dissemination of innovation through industrial revolution, but it is difficult to find specific comparisons in the agricultural field.
Organize ideas and innovation and comparing different technologies for the same
kind of agronomic activity, is an essential requirement to understand in this age and
even in the future, where and how precision agriculture could help the agriculture
systems. To deal with this challenge, on the one hand it is necessary to refer to
conceptual framework known as the “Long wave” theory of Kondratiev (neo–
Schumpeterian theory), which stated that radical technological revolutions influence
innovation and markets above social and economic changes. On the other hand, we
need to take into account the “Transition theory”, that try to explain technological
revolution emphasizing the spreading of niches. On these frameworks, it can be
resume that the two conceptual frameworks have similar targets and adopt
evolutionary economics with social change as a process of co-evolution of societal
sub-systems but with different historical coverage. Lastly, it is also important to bear
in mind that the Transition theory consider the sustainability, as opposed in the
neoSchumpeterian theory, therefore it could be important for future evaluations. In order
to evaluate agricultural systems in their complexity, can be helpful the SWOT
analysis that allows to evaluate ex-ante or ex-post systems or policy programs as
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as well as to focalize points of strength or
weakness and to underline opportunity or threats. This methodology is necessary to
defining differences between agricultural systems, characterized by different
innovations, and those which are now developing with the new approach named
“precision agriculture”. In the larger part of agro industrial farms the high tech
farming (HTF) is becoming a reality. The question to be resolved, therefore, is the
following: is it possible to assert the same for other farming system? Farmers will
have initial economical efforts, but for some agricultural operations, there are
immediate effects for environmental and economic sustainability. There are
severalexamples of technologytransferring to farmers in Europe inside
Mediterraneanregionsasproject “Mare, Ruralità e Terra: potenziare l’unitarietà
strategica” MARS + (Tirrò et al, 2013), “Vivaismo sostenibile” VIS
2.1
A first approach to delineate some guidelines in order to provide feasible
technological transferring to the different kind of agriculture systems requires an
initial reference to the theories that have been point out about technological
revolutions. Kondratiev wave theory describes technology revolutions and how
innovation irrupts through economy and markets. The also called “long wave”
theory, revised and discussed by many economist has many contact points with the
“Transition” theory that mainly analyses processes of radical change in society
connected with big changes in socio-technical system. Kondratiev theory
(neoSchumpeterian theory) is not usually associated with sustainability instead,
“Transition” theory is it and is limited in its debate of how to influence social and
economic opportunity. Within this theory, “the advantages of the new technology
are so great that policy and institution accompany the development of the new
industry” (Köhler, 2012). There are several modern economist which have been tried
to describe long waves as Freeman and Louçã
Generally, the discussion on technological revolution is on industrial field, but it can be borrowed also on agricultural revolutions that usually deduce from industrial ground.
Lastly, if the larger part of economist agree with the “Schumpeter-Freeman-Perez” paradigm that identify five waves for agricultural sector, innovations that bring new waves can be compared with industrial revolution waves as showed in the table 1.
Technological revolutions in the industrial sector and also in the agriculture sector
occurred along the same years. Nevertheless, it must be noticed that for the main tool
of the green revolution i.e. the tractor, and specifically for the T tractor have elapsed
only few years, while it is just a fact to find the first microprocessor on tractor have
spent many years. Consequently, the first approach with CAN-bus was made only in
1988
In order to evaluate each agricultural revolution that generated different agricultural
systems, a SWOT analysis was carried out to assess ex-ante or ex-post the systems
with the objective to focalize points of strength or weakness from internal and to
underlines opportunity or threats from external (Table 2).
A matrix that compares agrarian revolution with a system based on the precision
agriculture method was made with the target to make order in this frenzy period and
in order to compare it with other known systems. This system, inspired to the smart
specialization strategies on high technology farming of European Commission on
research and innovation on the Agrofood sector, splits different
mechanized/notmechanized field operations divided in technology oriented (eyes, touch, arms, mind)
and in service oriented (memory, experience, identity) (table 3). Under each
operation are shown the unit used
These operations were defined for the precision farming (but they can be explained also for the others technological revolution) as follow:
EYES & TOUCH to monitor the single element on wide area (sensors and digital layer) and recognise the effects in each element treated (on board, proximal and remote sensors)
MIND to be aware of what, where and when to act in each single productive step (Modelling and Decision Support Systems) MEMORY to be aware on what has been done (telemetrics, traceability, data store)
IDENTITY of agricultural resources and sustainable use at Local & Regional level (territorial complexity, TRL of tools & services, Know-how, CoPs). In the tables 3 and 4, clearly show how technology have influenced since the first to the fourth agricultural revolution the different operations. Moreover, it is possible to highlight as in the green revolution, (the second agricultural revolution) farmers did not carry on decisions on many operations.
In the first agrarian revolution thanks to innovations in the design and efficiency of ploughs, human strength increased even though there were less people employed in farming because of industrial revolution and wars. In the second agrarian revolution mechanization played a key role allowing everyone, more profits and production. Thanks to this, although the increasing number of people, the born of agroindustry resolved the hunger problem, with mechanization and chemicals. On the other hand, the system loses its complexity in terms of territorial knowledge and peculiarity. In the third agrarian revolution, times of innovation reduced in bias of more complexity of systems and technologies used. Knowing this, a first approach, committing the neo-Schumpeterian theory of technological revolutions and applying the SWOT analysis to the fourth agricultural revolution can be discussed and resumed as follows: (Table 5).
The table above summarize the state of the art of what is the fourth agricultural revolution.
Thebiggest difference between the fourth agricultural revolution and the others is
that the former happens during the era of the digital revolution. This opens to the
opportunity of changing radically the value distribution and allows the re-thinking of
the local products (and local producers) as the core of a new value system based on
the triple bottom line approach (people, planet, profit). This paradigm has been
defined “rural social innovation”, and is aimed at investigating the pathways for a
Mediterranean social innovation initiative
Trying to realize it, we should also consider that there are different actors turning in this system, discovering who exactly they are and how they act.
The main actors of this system are: - government (local or central), as the actor in charge for the policies - farmers, as the actor in charge for the supply - people, as the actor in charge for the final consumption demand
In this scenario, policies should take in consideration the real need of rural communities, taking care of the important role played by them for maintenance of landscape, water regulation, traditions, food quality and finally, of all the dimensions that can generate positive social and environmental impacts.
The last European Policies (CAP) and the Declaration of Cork 2.0 claim this path
well signed
Furthermore, the SWOT analysis risks realizing a static vision of the reality. In
fact, it is not possible to effect on strengths and weaknesses but it is possible to have
a deeper vision of the SWOT analysis working on and convert treats in opportunities.
In this case, referring to the table 5 there are two key variables, the value chain
(strength-weaknesses related) and the level of empowerment-exploitation of rural
communities and we intend to show how guidelines can influence the evolution of
the new agricultural paradigm, in terms of technological shifting, and their related
effects. This dynamic framework can develop (if the factors on the axis go to the
upside and the right) in a Community Supported Agriculture system (CSA), a digital
innovation hub, or other online and offline networks that fulfil the rural social
innovation approach, which include a digital approach
Every action took by actors, in other directions, cannot realize completely the innovations needed in rural areas for farmers. In fact, turning threats in opportunities means that the access to technology allows little and medium companies to use environmental peculiarities (i.e. biodiversity or landscape) as levers for marketing. For this reasons instead, those peculiarities can be the lever of a new value distribution.
Whilst it has been considered the policies and a different innovation approach in
rurality, on the other side arises the necessity to compare operational data in order to
understand that filling the gap of technologies innovation in agriculture is a real need.
As an evaluation example of agricultural working stages, the ploughing was
considered. The reference unit analysed was the working capacity expressed as m3
h1 ploughed considering a soil furrow slice with a 0,2 m deep and 0,4 m width, for a
total surface of 8 dm2 worked by a man with a shovel. The time required was set to
800 hours per hectare as documented by CosimoRidolfi
Approaching to the fourth agricultural revolution and trying to understand emerging needs, in both operational and policies it could be a chance to introduce profitable innovations in agriculture to have a sustainable managing of the natural resource. The highlight on one field operation, comparing through different kind of technology used, is the first step to underline the necessity of a technology introduction also for small and medium agricultural enterprises. In this contest, it is important to remember the feasibility of a technology and the cost to effort for every kind of company. The challenge for the policy makers in the framework of a technological revolution, such as precision farming, is boosting knowledge and technological transfer also for those farmers who can’t have all the capital needed. For this reasons, it is desirable to design and implement an economic and social ecosystem able in supporting this kind of policy. Only in this way, it will possible to shift from a extractive business as usual value, to a community supported agriculture system (CSA), where the value generation and redistribution is coherent with the effective value contribution given by the actors involved in the process.In conclusion, these kind of policies allow us to consider a new SWOT analysis that faces the challenge of the rural social innovation approach. techno-economic