Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture (LINSA) represent one organizational pattern in which various actors share knowledge and jointly develop contextualised solutions. The LINSA concept builds on the notions of communities of practice and networks of practice. It refers to a specific network type consisting of ‘producers, customers, experts, NGOs, SMEs, local administrations, as well as official researchers and extensionists, that are mutually engaged with common goals for sustainable agriculture and rural development – cooperating, sharing resources and co-producing new knowledge by creating conditions for communication’ . While LINSA require a minimum level of governance and network organization, they vary considerably in their degree of network integration, governance form, scale, origin and function. Irrespective of their organizational form, LINSA need financial resources to cover expenses related to their activities and network administration. Securing continued funding, however, is challenging due to the short-term nature of many support mechanisms and a general lack of funds. Yet, a systematic study on the role of financial resources and available funding instruments for network continuation does not exist. With this paper, we aim to fill this gap by using the particular example of funding for LINSA. Since social and economic contexts differ between regions, sectors and actors involved, we emphasise there will be no one-fits all model but various settings of LINSA. It is important to acknowledge that studying financial resources in isolation is not sufficient to explain LINSA development. Rather, it is the combination of and the interaction between different kinds of resources affecting network trajectories. In order to address the role of financial resources from an integrated perspective, we therefore draw on the resource-based view (RBV) from strategic management that incorporates various resource types. Furthermore, we consider the benefits theory of nonprofit finance to determine which mix of funding sources is appropriate for LINSA. We develop a set of propositions. For that purpose, we also rely on empirical findings from beyond the agricultural sector, because they provide useful general insights on the role of financial resources for network development and continuation. The proposed classification of LINSA funding instruments increases the applicability of our conceptual work and emphasizes the importance of designing appropriate funding instruments. Finally, combining the RBV and the benefits theory leads to our conceptual framework on the role of financial resources for LINSA continuation. It aims to provide guidance to both funding organizations and LINSA actors. We therefore conclude with a range of implications for practice and for future research.
1/1
This factsheet explains how bringing a team of farmer, vet, feed and farm advisors together is sharing different sources of knowledge together, making the Multi Actor Farm Health approach an effective approach to improve biosecurity on poultry farms
This case study is drafting new legislation that allows renting forestland for multiple purposes in order to increase economic efficiency and maintain a balance between all ecosystem services. This Russian case works on regulation mechanisms so that people renting forestland can use it for multiple purposes, and to include ecosystem services in the Forest Code.
This factsheet explores how managing forests to be used as spiritual forests and forest kindergartens could benefit both the forest and the forest owner. The core impact of the case study is to raise awareness of the importance of cultural ecosystem services and to motivate forest actors to manage forests appropriately.