Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review

Abstract

The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) and the Farm Advisory Service (FAS) are important elements of the current Programming Period of the Common Agricultural Policy (2023–2027), as it is now deemed necessary to transition the European agricultural model to more sustainable forms, through the dissemination of agricultural knowledge, while simultaneously promoting innovative methods. An Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System must be able to propose and develop ideas for the transmission of agricultural knowledge, promoting innovation and the exchange of ideas. The present study includes a significant number of investigations on the effectiveness of the implementation of the AKIS and the FAS so that the conclusions are representative of the scope of the work. The object in question is now the cornerstone of the modernization of agricultural production and an important way out towards more competitive models of agriculture. The purpose of this paper is to give an extensive overview of the degree of implementation of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in the countries of the European Union (including the United Kingdom until 2019) from 2014 until today, essentially during the implementation of the second period of Common Agricultural Policy. In the context of this article, the main results of the research carried out in the EU countries during the period under study and the proposed improvements by the researchers, where they are mentioned, are recorded epigrammatically. Finally, the countries are categorized according to the degree of implementation of the AKIS and the contribution of the Agricultural Advisory System to more sustainable forms of agricultural practices.

1. Introduction

The concept of an Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) has developed significantly over the last twenty years in the European Union as it became increasingly necessary to move from the linear research model to the interactive innovation application model. The term AKIS is defined as a system in which human actors and organizations interact in relation to the creation, transformation, transmission, storage, retrieval, integration, dissemination and exploitation of knowledge and information, with the aim of working collaboratively to support decision-making, problem-solving and promoting innovation in the agricultural sector [1]. A well-developed AKIS includes seven main functions: the development of knowledge, the creation of networks for the diffusion of knowledge, entrepreneurial activities, search guidance, market formation, resource mobilization and the creation of legitimacy and, finally, the neutralization of resistance to change [2]. A cornerstone of an AKIS is the Farm Advisory Service (FAS), which the EU has decided to subsidize since 2007 through Rural Development Programs so that every European farmer and breeder has access to agricultural knowledge [3].

During the first Programming Period (2007–2013), a Farm Advisory System (EU FAS) was established as mandatory, and the member states were invited to adopt this institution. In the first phase, the aim of the system was to guarantee that European farmers would benefit from the dissemination of agricultural knowledge and services and would comply with EU standards and regulations. This was to be achieved through the two Pillars of the CAP. The first Pillar allowed the creation of the EU FAS. It was mandatory for all farmers to comply with the rules of Multiple Compliance in plant and livestock, respectively. The process included the selection and certification of agricultural advisory bodies, recognized by each member state, as competent to provide services in the entire range of Multiple Compliance. In the second Pillar, the Rural Development Measures, the implementation of the said system was not mandatory. According to the specific Measure, certified advisory bodies were allowed to operate, mainly at the farm level, while at the same time, the beneficiary farmer enjoyed the support of up to EUR 2000.

In the second Programming Period (2014–2022), the Farm Advisory Service is still and remains mandatory for member states in the first Pillar, and the scope was extended to other environmental factors, such as water management, greening and integrated pest management. In the second Pillar, Measure 2 of the Rural Development Program remained optional for member states and proposed three types of support: the use and establishment of advisory services and the training of agricultural advisers.

In the current Programming Period (2023–2027), there are implemented important reforms in the field of agricultural advisers. The New CAP encourages farmers and ranchers to step up their efforts to accelerate the necessary transition to a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly agri-food system by 2030. Each member state has developed a strategic plan focusing on knowledge sharing and supporting innovation practices. Thus, they incorporated an AKIS into their national planning [4].

Based on the above, we consider that the implementation of an AKIS is a serious priority for the European Union as since 2007 and the first implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy, it has been subsidized financially, while at the same time, the EU Authorities have also strengthened the institutional framework. The AKIS is the only way out of an obsolete model of agriculture and aims at the effective implementation of a modern model of agricultural production.

This paper presents an extensive literature review of research carried out in the 28 EU countries (including the United Kingdom until 2019 and excluding Romania, where data are limited), which presents the degree of effectiveness of the AKIS in each country, the advantages and disadvantages arising from the implementation of said system and, consequently, the diversity of the AKIS applied in EU countries, as well as the eventual proposals of the researchers, which aim at a more efficient operation of such a system. Also, essential information is provided on Farm Advisory Services as a key factor in the operation of an AKIS, as they are an essential element of the current CAP. Despite the fact that the concept of AKIS has been developed since the 1960s as a successor to the Agricultural Knowledge System—AKS [3], the literature review is limited to research published from 2014 onwards, as in this way, it captures the effectiveness of the implementation of AKISs after the implementation of the first two Programming Periods of the Common Agricultural Policy in the EU.

Initially, the method and process of study collection are presented using keywords and limiting the time period of their publication. This process is shown epigrammatically in Figure 1. In Section 4 presented the authors, country, topic, content and potential proposals of the studies selected for this research. In the Section 4 the findings of the researchers of each country are analyzed, categorized and compared with each other. Finally, in the Section 5, the most important points of the study in question are presented.

2. Materials and Methods

The present literature review was based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) method, using a checklist, which is linked to a flow diagram of three phases: identification, screening and inclusion. PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. This approach has some specific features, as it ensures a clear and transparent review of studies while rigorously evaluating them and, ultimately, selecting the most relevant high-quality articles. The method selected is widely accepted by the scientific community.

2.1. Data Collection Procedure

The search was conducted in databases SCOPUS, Taylor & Francis Online and Google Scholar. These databases were upheld for the relevance of their data to the research topic. Secondly, their providers render the databases public, posing no additional cost to this research procedure. Interventional studies involving animals or humans and other studies that require ethical approval must list the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code.

2.2. Identification Criteria

The keywords used to search the articles under review in the above databases and which are in line with the objective of this work were “AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION SYSTEM”, “COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY”, “RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM” and “FARM ADVISORY SERVICES”. The geographical specificity also led to the addition of geographical terminologies such as “UNITED KINGDOM”, “EUROPEAN UNION” and “THE 28 COUNTRIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION”. The numbers of the yielded articles, along with their results, are presented in the Section 3 elow. Article titles, abstracts and keyword lists were searched for keywords to ensure complete coverage of the sample.

In March 2024, the search in the three abovementioned databases resulted in 1081 papers, which were published since 2014. The search was limited in time to the last decade, as the second Program Period of the Common Agricultural Policy was essentially implemented in that period. However, 458 articles were excluded as duplicates of other reports, and 12 more were excluded for other reasons. As a result, 611 articles pass the initial identification phase.

2.3. Screening and Selection Criteria

During the screening phase, a total of 561 articles were excluded. Initially, 198 records were excluded for various reasons as they were considered irrelevant to the spirit of this research. Then, considering the writing language of the articles, which had to be English, another 147 records were excluded. Also, 197 articles were excluded as they referred to countries outside the European Union, and finally, another 19 articles were excluded from the final list due to unclear methodology.

2.4. Eligibility and Inclusion Criteria

The reviewer assumed an individual screening of the articles obtained from the literature search. Before that, however, a systematized process was put into place to choose specific papers (from all sources considered) based on a previously prepared list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles that were taken up to be used for systematic review fulfilled the criteria below:

• Inclusion criteria
  • The studies that were carried out or considered the 28 countries in the European Union (including the United Kingdom until 2019 and excluding Romania).
  • Studies published in the English Language.
  • Studies that were published within the past 11 years (the review covers the period from 2014 to 2024, a period in which the two previous Programming Periods of the Common Agricultural Policy were implemented).
  • Studies covering the inclusion of a transparent description of the process of data acquisition and interpretation.
  • Studies covering a primary or secondary class investigation on the subject matter.
  • Studies showcasing the effects of AKISs and FASs on agricultural knowledge advancement.
• Exclusion criteria
  • Studies published in a non-English language.
  • Studies carried out outside the EU.
  • Studies with unclear methodology of data collection and analysis.
  • Studies lacking author names and affiliation.
  • Studies not covering both the main issues of this review (i.e., AKIS and FAS).

Finally, 50 articles fully meet the conditions set for the writing of this paper and are included in the analysis.

3. Results

Table 1. Systematic review summary: country, factors investigated, key results obtained and suggested improvements.

Article ID	Country	Factor(s) Investigated	Key Results Obtained	Suggested Improvements
[5] Kiraly et al. (2023).	European Union countries	Assessing the behavior of European farmers, foresters and advisors regarding the frequency of searching for information on digital transformation using the EU Farmbook application.	The most common activity described by the participants was the online searching. Web searches can be divided into three main categories: navigational, informational and transactional. The research showed that farmers’ online search focuses on multimedia (photos and videos) as opposed to text. Dissemination of knowledge data through multimedia is easier and more demonstrative, and this facilitates the stakeholders. The subject matter of said multimedia may be precision agriculture, educational videos, etc. The traditional linear extension model can no longer be sustained as agricultural advisors are increasingly using Information and Communications Technologies, where there is unlimited information and many applications and tools at their disposal. This led to the EU Farmbook application creation. Apart from the above, a significant source of information exchange is peer-to-peer communication between farmers.
[6] Ingram and Mills (2019).	European countries	Advisory services regarding sustainable soil management.	Farmers’ know-how needs in the field of SSM are not fully met, and this is due to several factors, such as the fragmented governance seen in many member states and the different requirements of farmers for agricultural advice. The agricultural advice that farmers receive often has conflicting or overlapping content, and this results from the dispersion of responsibilities in the public sector.	● The capacities and expertise of advisors are prime for SSM advisory. The terrain and its sustainable management are the most important factors, and therefore, a thorough assessment of its potential is required.
[7] Laurent et al. (2021).	Southwestern France	Evaluation of the processes by which farmers combine different sources of agricultural advice (micro-AKIS) for three types of innovation.	The results revealed a few characteristics of agricultural practices regarding the diversity of agricultural advice providers, as well as the lack of reliable sources of innovation applications. The research shows the significant diversity of the agricultural advisors that farmers have access to, as well as the process of joining an AKIS. Also, a high differentiation of agricultural advisory services was found.
[8] Madureira et al. (2022).	Europe	The role of farm consultancy in agricultural innovation in relation to the microAKIS.	The dominance of private providers of agricultural advisory services has led to a fragmentation of advice rather than a plurality of decision support channels. Different innovations shape different microAKISs and bring pluralism to advice. As a result of the analysis, gaps are observed in the application of the AKIS and, more specifically, during the process of evaluation and implementation of the innovation.
[9] Amerani et Michailidis (2023).	Greece	Evaluation of the contribution of the Greek AKIS and its adaptation to modern requirements of Greek agriculture	From the research, it emerged that in the context of the implementation of the AKIS, new knowledge is developed, which leads to the solution of agricultural problems, and financial resources are invested for the training of young farmers either in matters of innovation or in matters of technological development. Rural Development Programs, such as Organic Agriculture and Precision Agriculture, can contribute to the establishment of the AKIS in Greece. On the contrary, the aging of the farm population and the complexity of the EU legislation are inhibiting factors for the implementation of the AKIS.	● The development of agricultural programs, the creation of new facilities, the simplification of procedures and legislation and the concentration of agriculture in the production of agricultural products of high added value with methods that help the sustainability of the environment are a guide to the optimal implementation of the Greek AKIS.
[10] Kiljunen et Jaakkola (2020).	Finland	AKIS and the Farm Advisory System in Finland.	The Finnish AKIS consists of the Administration actors (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Center for Economic Development, Finnish Food Authority), research and education actors (University of Helsinki, research institutes), agricultural advisory companies and farmers and farmers’ groups. The main provider of agricultural advice is ProAgria, serving more than 80% of the country’s farmers and stock-farmers. It is a private organization, owned mainly by farmers.	● The effective cooperation of the actors of an AKIS is of key importance, with the aim of increasing agricultural income, the production of better-quality agricultural products and the sustainable management of the environment. ● It is also necessary to more effectively disseminate research results in practice.
[11] Charatsari et al. (2023).	Greece, Italy	Investigation of the possibility of AKIS actors to develop dynamic capacities during the supply process of the food chain.	The results of the research showed that the actors of the two countries’ AKISs have a significant ability to detect the opportunities that are presented, which is mainly due to the advertising campaign in the field of digital agriculture. Private agricultural advisory companies, which mainly target large farms, appear to be more active in digital technology adoption, and this places them in a more advantageousposition compared to public advisory bodies. Optimizing the effectiveness of an AKIS depends, to a large extent, on the proper incorporation of new agricultural knowledge and its effective transmission to farmers.	● It is necessary to change the culture in matters of knowledge and renewal of the Greek AKIS, as the existing mentality inhibits the adoption of digital know-how. A more active impact of the educational and research institutes will help in this direction.
[12] Masi et al. (2022).	Italy	Evaluation of precision agriculture tools as an innovation and the variables that facilitate or hinder their implementation in agricultural practice.	In the context of evaluating the degree of application of innovative methods in agricultural production, as well as identifying difficulties in Italian agricultural holdings, the sequence awareness-knowledge-adoption-product (AKAP) was applied. The research findings confirm the critical significance of the AKIS in the process of innovation adoption. Regarding the socio-economic profile of farmers who adopt precision farming methods, it mainly concerns men, young age and relatively high educational level, which are leaders of large farms, as the benefits are judged to be long-term. The Farm Advisory Services play an important role in all phases, confirming that innovation actors develop a competence portfolio that is able to affect the various steps of the AKAP sequence.	● It is very important to strengthen the agricultural knowledge systems in following AKAP as it would lead to optimal understanding of precision agriculture methods.
[13] Nordlund and Norrby (2021).	Sweden	Detailed description of the Swedish agricultural advisory services.	Swedish AKIS actors can be divided into three areas: farming, advisory and research. The system is less hierarchical and more complex. This means that there are no strong connections between research and farming. Advisory organizations in Sweden are heterogeneous and are divided into three categories: the commercial advisory service, the value chain service and the free service.	● In order to strengthen the linkage between farming and research, scientists must understand the farming process better.
[14] Sturel (2021).	France	French AKIS and Farm Advisory System combined with the promotion of interactive innovation to support the transition in agriculture and forestry.	The AKIS in France is characterized by public investments at the national scale in various research and education organizations and by collaboration and contracting with farmers associations, non-profit organizations and private actors for advisory services and applied research. Its strong structure leads to the successful development of the French agri-food sector. In France, there are approximately 23,500 farm advisors who provide advisory services to farmers to varying degrees. This represents about one advisor for every 20 farmers. Publicly funded advisors represent about one-third of the total.	● There is a need to transition to more sustainable and resilient AKIS systems that will be efficient from an economic, social and environmental point of view. ● The new challenges require significant changes in the way agricultural holdings operate. AKIS actors must support farmers and foresters in this direction. ● It is necessary for a cross-cutting knowledge transfer activity, from needs identification to massive dissemination, knowing that the optimization of the transfer will lead to the refining of the solutions. ● Collective approaches based on farmers’ groups are beneficial and must be encouraged in complementarity with individualized support to farmers.
[15] Enfedaque Diaz et al. (2020).	Spain	AKIS and Advisory Services in Spain.	The efficiency of the transfer of agricultural knowledge from the advisers to the Spanish farmers remains at a high level despite the diversity presented in the Spanish AKIS. The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture created a Focus Group on the AKIS and FAS in order to identify the obstacles, the needs and the possible solutions to the problems these systems face. The revision of the Spanish Constitution in 1978 led to the regionalization of agricultural advisory services, in which public and private advisory bodies are seen to be active.
[16] Almeida et Viveiros (2020).	Portugal	Report of the AKIS in Portugal, with an emphasis on agricultural advisory services.	The Portuguese AKIS is particularly problematic, as there is a lack of coordination by the public authorities of the large number of actors that make it up. It consists of four groups of actors. The first includes Farming- and Forestry-based associations, the second includes Knowledge and Innovation providers, the third includes Public Directories, and the last is Research and Education. The practical implementation of innovative methods of agricultural production in the Portuguese countryside has increased in recent years, as the interconnection of AKIS actors has improved and, at the same time, several projects have been promoted. In Portugal, there are private organizations that are small private advisory companies, as well as farmer-based organizations, which deliver several services for agriculture and forest.
[17] Birke et al. (2021).	Germany	Overview of the AKIS and the Forestry Knowledge and Innovation System (FKIS) in Germany.	The administrative form of Germany with its 16 federal states (Bundeslander) becomes evident in the coordination of the local AKIS, as it has been assigned to each of them. In the German AKIS, the efficiency of the transfer of agricultural knowledge between various agencies and agricultural holdings is high, in contrast to the effectiveness of linking research and agricultural practice. The German FKIS has similar characteristics to the AKIS and is at an early stage.	● The interconnection between the factors of creation of agricultural knowledge and innovation and the other factors of the German AKIS appears to be weak.
[18] Jelakovic (2021).	Croatia	Overview of the Croatian AKIS.	The effectiveness of the implementation of the Croatian AKIS remains low, with a weak response to national development due to the fragmented public and private actors involved, as well as weak linkages between them. The main weakness of the system is the inability to transfer knowledge and research from its operators to agricultural advisors and farmers. The main form of funding for the system is public sources. Food industries and input providers are also significant sources of funding, with a growing interest in investing in innovation.	● Public and private bodies involved in training farmers and providing agricultural advice should focus on the effective promotion of knowledge and information directly related to innovation.
[19] Stankovic (2020).	Serbia	Report of the Serbian AKIS and FAS.	The Serbian AKIS model describes the process of creation, transfer and application of agricultural knowledge. The main actors of the system are the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Ministries of Science and Education. The FAS is mainly funded by donor projects in order to select and train advisors, aiming at high-quality services. Feedback on the FAS is very important for the country, but at present it is mainly about the evaluation of the services of the advisers and less about the effects of the advice on agricultural activity.	● In the future, the feedback from the provision of agricultural advisory services should be more about the effects of the advice on agricultural practice and less about recording the activities of the advisers. ● The AKIS in Serbia in the future will give special attention to the transfer of research results to the end users, trying to keep the involvement of all relevant stakeholders.
[20] Hrovatic (2020).	Slovenia	Description of the Slovenian AKIS and FAS.	The Slovenian AKIS consists of six actors: the public sector, research and education institutions, public services providers and private actors, which are farmer-based organizations, private advisory companies and NGOs. A permanent AKIS monitoring system in Slovenia does not exist. The transfer of knowledge and innovation from research and education institutions through FAS to farmers is inadequate.	● It is essential to establish links between AKIS actors, which cannot operate on their own, and to strengthen cooperation with the private sector. Furthermore, a coordinating mechanism is necessary. ● The research carried out in the country must emanate from the needs of the farmers.
[21] Bachev (2022).	Bulgaria	Analyzing Governance, Efficiency and Development of the AKIS.	The Bulgarian AKIS is considered extremely complex, as many organizations and bodies participate in the processes of creation, transfer and application of innovation. Furthermore, the country’s governance AKIS consists of diverse and numerous organizations and agencies, for which activities lack sufficient official and reliable information. Agrarian Research and Development (ARD) includes every creative work aiming at increasing the body of knowledge both in humans, culture, society and in new applications. It is carried out mainly by public and private organizations and institutes and, to a smaller extent, by private firms. It is funded by the state budget.	● Partial compensation of the missing data by experts’ assessment activities while carrying out in-depth as well as representative surveys targeting singled-out components of the AKIS. ● The country should work towards institutionalizing and regulating the collection of official statistics and other necessary data and information. ● A strategy was adopted for the digitization of agricultural processes, with the aim of sustainable management of agricultural resources with the simultaneous application of technological methods.
[22] Koutsouris et al. (2020).	Cyprus	Comprehensive overview of the Cyprus AKIS and the Agricultural Advisory System.	The most important actors participating in the Cyprus AKIS are the Department of Agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture (mainly the Department of Extensions) and the Agricultural Research Institute. Also, agricultural supply companies, Agricultural Cooperatives, Development Organizations and, of course, producers and groups of producers participate in this system. The Agricultural Research Institute is the main agricultural knowledge generator. This process is mainly undertaken by the Extension Services, as well as by the agronomists of private companies and producer groups. The main provider of agricultural advice in Cyprus remains the public sector and is free of cost to the farmer.	● For the more efficient operation of the local AKIS, stronger interconnection between the actors under the supervision of the Extension Services is proposed. ● AKIS actors need to focus more on the needs of farmers, and they, in turn, become more cooperative with each other in terms of disseminating agricultural knowledge and, at the same time, facilitating the transfer of innovative ideas.
[23] Knierim et al. (2019).	Germany	Smart Farming Technologies (SFT) and their degree of perception by farmers.	Data show that even though farmers have, in general, a positive attitude regarding the outcome of SFT, they are less enthusiastic about the effects of implementing SFT for SMNR. A significant number of institutional and infrastructural obstacles lead to the difficulty of establishing Smart Farming Technologies.	● The obstacles observed during the implementation process of SFT can be eliminated by mutual adaptation of both the farmers and the applied technological services. This would lead to increased costs on both sides. ● Better access to SFT-related information, training and advisory services and to reliable digital infrastructure.
[24] Koutsouris et al. (2020)	Greece	AKIS and agricultural advisory services in Greece.	The Greek AKIS appears to be extremely ineffective. The lack of effective coordination of the actors by the national institutions and, consequently, the weak interconnection between them led to this fact. The part of agricultural consultancy in Greece has mainly been undertaken by private companies, which, at the same time, supply Greek farmers with agricultural supplies. In Greece, there is no central mechanism for coordinating the AKIS actors, nor an institutional framework that describes the policy in question. At the national level, there are interactions between the MRDF, the ELGO DIMITRA Organization and the Administrative Authorities.
[25] Coquil et al. (2018).	France	The transformations of farmers and AKIS actors’ work during agroecological transitions.	The actors of the French AKIS must focus on the production process of the farmers, making use of the agricultural knowledge provided, as well as the feedback from the directly interested parties. The interconnection of agronomic and ergonomic methods can lead to the utilization of agricultural resources sought by farmers to apply innovative methods. An increasing expression of local characteristics (e.g., microclimate, soil diversity, etc.) is observed, as well as the relationship of farmers with the environment. When applying agroecological methods, the knowledge-generation process is very important.	● Agricultural knowledge must be certified by scientific methods and, at the same time, must be valued by stakeholders to have an impact.
[26] Lybaert et Debruyne (2020).	Belgium	Overview of the Belgian AKIS, focusing on agricultural advisory services.	Due to the administrative structure of Belgium, two different AKISs are applied, the Walloon and the Flemish. In recent years, significant changes have taken place in the Belgian public administration, resulting in different systems being implemented in the two administrative regions of the country. The KRATOS system in Flanders and the Agricultural Code in Wallonia. The Flemish AKIS is considered one of the strongest in the European Union. The Farm Advisory System has a weak link with agricultural research and is an issue that needs to be addressed in the future. The AKIS of Wallonia differs from the Flemish one in terms of the centralization of responsibilities as it is considered more fragmented but without significantly affecting its effectiveness. The support measures in the Flemish AKIS are more strongly oriented towards innovative methods of agricultural production than in the Walloon AKIS.	● A basic condition for the optimization of the Flemish AKIS is the strengthening of the links between the Agricultural Advisory System and agricultural research. ● There is significant scope for improvement of the AKIS in Wallonia, mainly in matters of innovation.
[27] Dortmans et al. (2020).	Netherlands	Insight into the Dutch AKIS actors and factors that play a role in the system.	The Dutch AKIS is strong and internationally oriented but fragmented. This fragmentation is caused by a lack of common vision among the AKIS actors. This led the government to implement a subsidized voucher system that allows farmers to seek advice and training toward a common direction. A major challenge facing the Dutch AKIS is the gap created between the public and private sectors. There are two categories of agricultural advisory bodies active in the Netherlands: independent agricultural consultants, who are paid either by the farmer or the state, and agricultural product consultants, who are paid by receiving a percentage of the agricultural products sold. A total of 60% of Dutch farmers consult independent advisors, but all of them consult sales-driven advisors.	● The gap between independent advisors and sales-driven advisors needs to be addressed in order to move the Dutch agricultural system to a circular system. ● Education, which remains the only factor of the Dutch AKIS that has not been privatized, can, in the future, play a key role in the effort to create a more solid system.
[28] Gaborne et al. (2020).	Hungary	The general characteristics of the Hungarian agricultural and forestry sector and AKIS, as well as the historical development of the advisory system.	The Hungarian AKIS is considered comprehensive, but the links between the actors are weak. A fundamental body is the Agricultural Chamber, as it essentially contributes to the transfer of knowledge and safeguarding the interests of its members. The country’s National Advisory Center (OSzK) plays an important role in the dissemination of knowledge and innovation. In Hungary, there are currently 48 registered agricultural advisory bodies, of which half are not engaged in the trading of agricultural supplies, while 16 of them are active in agricultural consultancy.	● There is a need to increase the flow of knowledge between research and practice, with simultaneous assessment of farmers’ needs and sharing of assessment findings with agricultural advisors. ● The development of digital agriculture becomes crucial through the creation and maintenance of databases for the expansion of digital skills. ● A more effective use of the educational network will play a key role.
[29] Oliveira et al. (2019).	Portugal	The Portuguese irrigation system of the Lis Valley, within the framework of the EIP AGRI Program of the European Union.	A necessary condition for the Business Groups participating in the Rural Development Program is the integration into the production process with innovative methods. The objectives of the traditional innovation framework in the country are to introduce modern trends in agricultural innovation, focusing on sustainable development, improvement of competitiveness and enhanced production. The objective of the Business Groups is to create stable systems, aiming at sustainable production methods through innovative processes.	● A necessary condition for optimizing the use of innovation methods is the harmonious coexistence of public and private entities. ● Rural Development Programs are important to enhance agricultural innovation in developed areas. ● Furthermore, the implemented innovation, in the context of which investments are made with the aim of increasing the profitability of investments, must be evaluated.
[30] Mirra et al. (2020).	Campania region, Italy	Analysis of the implementation of an experimental AKIS model through the RDP.	The AKIS in the Campania region is complex and requires effective governance and continuous monitoring and evaluation. The Campanian AKIS is based on the Quadruple Helix model. Each one of the public sector, farmers, research-training-advisory services and citizens is a part of this model.	● Every AKIS actor has to be involved from the beginning in a clear and common vision of the innovation path. ● Agricultural advisory services must operate as innovation facilitators. ● In the future, modern and tailored agricultural advisory programs should be implemented, keeping pace with farmers’ needs.
[31] Cristiano et al. (2020).	Italy	An overview of the Italian AKIS and the local Farm Advisory Services (FASs).	The Italian AKIS is completely fragmented but with a relatively strong interconnection between its actors. This results in a confusion of responsibilities. The strengthening of the interconnection between the actors of the Italian AKIS is due to the implementation of the last two Programming Periods of the CAP, with the application of innovative methods in agricultural production. Community subsidies are the exclusive form of funding for the Italian Agricultural Advisory Services, and this acts as a barrier to the effective implementation of the AKIS. The Italian FAS still has little connection between agricultural research and the knowledge needs of farmers, while the issues discussed by the agricultural advisers mainly concern Rural Development Programs and Cross-Compliance and not so much innovation.	● An important action that would lead to the strengthening of the agricultural cooperatives and, consequently, to the strengthening of the Italian AKIS is the financing from national funds.
[32] Todorova (2021).	Bulgaria	A comprehensive description of the Bulgarian AKIS and FAS.	The Bulgarian AKIS is considered relatively integrated but with weak links between its actors, as several public and private bodies are involved in the processes of creation, dissemination and application of agricultural knowledge. In the Strategic Plan of the New Common Agricultural Policy, a coordination structure has been created for the operation of the AKIS. The Ministry of Agriculture of Bulgaria has established a new organization, NAAS, which is the strongest agricultural advisory body. At the same time, private companies providing agricultural advice are active in the Bulgarian market, which emerged in the context of the inclusion of farmers in the RDP.	● Due to the weak connection between theory and practice, the Bulgarian authorities are called upon to heal this gap and make applied agriculture more effective and efficient. ● It is very important to create an environment that will contribute to the more effective dissemination of information, the implementation of innovation and, in general, the optimal use of existing knowledge to achieve the objectives of the CAP.
[33] Dzelme et Zurins (2021).	Latvia	A description of the AKIS in Latvia and brief outlook of the Forestry AKIS (FKIS).	The Latvian AKIS consists of a number of actors who contribute to the creation and dissemination of agricultural knowledge and the implementation and financing of actions focused on innovation. AKIS includes actors involved in agricultural research, farmer training and agricultural consultancy, as well as national organizations that coordinate these actions. As far as the Latvian FKIS is concerned, depending on the form of ownership of the forest area, the way of providing forest advisory services also differs. The implementation of innovative methods in Latvia is an important national goal, and this is achieved with the help of centers for the creation and dissemination of agricultural knowledge involving enterprises, industries and scientific bodies.	● It is necessary to strengthen the institutional coordinating bodies to promote cooperation. ● Uninterrupted access to agricultural knowledge by farmers over time so that they stay updated with the latest developments is very important. ● In the field of agricultural consultancy, there is a shortage of agricultural consultants as most have been employed for many years, and there is a need to renew the sector.
[34] Matuseviciute et al. (2021).	Lithuania	AKIS and FAS in Lithuania. A detailed report.	The Lithuanian AKIS consists of several actors related to agricultural knowledge, education, research and advisory services, which belong to either the public or the private sector. The ties between them are considered strong. There are two categories of agricultural advisory bodies to Lithuanian farmers and foresters: impartial agricultural advisers, who do not represent a company and provide advice necessary for the farmer and take into account his needs, and private individuals, who provide agricultural advice on behalf of a company. In Lithuania, agricultural advisory bodies have specialized and highly qualified personnel, which is even certified every three years so that service delivery remains at a high level. Most often, recipients of agricultural advice are young farmers, as they lack experience but are more receptive to modernization and innovation.
[35] Zimmer et al. (2020).	Luxembourg	Description of the AKIS in Luxembourg.	Luxembourg’s AKIS is considered one of the best in the EU, as it is integrated with quite strong links between actors. It includes national coordinating bodies, educational and research institutions, as well as farmers’ groups. There are eight Public Accredited Advisory Organizations (PAAO) active in Luxembourg, which are tasked with providing agricultural advice. Significant room for improvement exists in the interface between the actors regarding the promotion of innovative production methods.	● In the field of agricultural consultancy, the country should focus on innovative technologies in the field of crop production. ● Reducing the bureaucracy that governs the PAAO is an important challenge for the future.
[36] Giagnocavo et al. (2022).	Spain	The reconnection of the farm production system with nature, especially where the production procedure is embedded in less sustainable conventional or dominant regimes and landscapes.	Farmers have a significant role in participating in complex networks of agri-food systems, but conventional agri-industrial systems have also led to the disconnection of farmers from nature. The farmer’s interaction with nature was found to be functional in (SE Spain) in the domains of biological control, ecological restoration, soil health and pond management.	● Applying agroecological practices would lead to a deeper understanding of the ecosystems in greenhouse landscapes. ● Through the practice of agriculture, a deeper understanding of the ecosystems in which farming activities are located may be gained by farmers, their organizations and, in general, their AKIS.
[37] Klitgaard (2019).	Denmark	A comprehensive description of the AKIS and FAS in Denmark.	The Danish AKIS, as well as the agricultural advisory services, are considered leading in the EU. These services were first implemented many years ago and, over the years, have evolved and established themselves as models in Europe, which fully meet the needs of Danish farmers. A cornerstone of the Danish AKIS is the Danish Agricultural Advisory System (DAAS), together with the Agricultural Knowledge Center (SEGES) and 29 agricultural advisory centers. An important disadvantage of the system is the reduction of advisory centers in the country.	● Due to the continuous decline of Danes engaged in agriculture and the concentration of large areas in a few farmers, a condition is being created that may, in the future, affect the relationship between farmers’ groups and agricultural advisory companies. ● The very high level of training of Danish farmers poses a challenge or even a threat to traditional agricultural advisory companies and may give rise to new forms of such companies.
[38] Cristiano et al. (2020).	Malta	Description of the AKIS with a focus in the FAS in the Republic of Malta.	The country’s agricultural policy is in its infancy, as it only recently acquired a competent Ministry. This also has an impact on the policy related to the AKIS. The AKIS in Malta is considered quite fragmented, with weak links between actors and a lack of coordination. Consequently, there is significant scope for improvement so that it meets modern requirements. The agricultural advisory sector is dominated by private companies, which are coordinated by a national organization. (AgriConnect).
[39] Knierim et al. (2015)	Belgium, France, Ireland, Germany, Portugal and the UK	The AKIS concept in selected EU member states.	There is a general appraisal and usefulness of the AKIS and sustainability. The AKIS concept helps understand and evaluate the agricultural-induced policies of innovation and sustainable management in all the countries assessed.
[40] Terziev and Arabska (2015).	Bulgaria	Quality assurance and sustainable development in the agri-food sector.	To facilitate a prosperous future in terms of food security and SMNR, there is a need to establish the AKIS. Distribution of knowledge, innovations across all stakeholders and networking can increase competitiveness in agriculture and the food industry. The AKIS embraces all the individual actors and promotes their interactions along creation and transfer of knowledge in new ways that prove effective and promote sustainability.	● Sustainable agricultural development can be achieved through the recording and appropriate use of agricultural inputs and the creation of technologies that respond to market demands and information systems. ● Agricultural sustainability requires an economy based on knowledge.
[41] Konecna (2020).	Czech Republic	A comprehensive description of theAKIS in the Czech Republic, with a particular focus on farm and forestry advisory services.	The structure of the Czech AKIS, according to the type of services provided, consists of education, methodological transfer and research findings, certification and the Agricultural Advisory System. Depending on the form of funding each AKIS body receives, the system consists of state bodies, state-sponsored bodies, semi-state-funded organizations, farmers’ groups, NGOs, private agricultural advisory companies and organizations based on state and EU support. Under the Czech Ministry of Agriculture are the two official agricultural advisory bodies: the National Council for Advisory and Education for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information. In the orderly implementation of an AKIS, an important role is played by the dissemination of agricultural knowledge between its creators and recipients. This action is financed through the Rural Development Programs. The lack of funding for agricultural advisory services through the RDPs of the second Programming Period led to a reduced number of certified agricultural advisors.
[42] Kasdorferova et al. (2020).	Slovak Republic	Description of the AKIS and FAS in Slovak Republic.	In the Slovak Republic, the establishment and implementation of agricultural advisory services went through several stages, depending on the country’s EU accession path. The Slovak FAS has several weaknesses, such as the lack of a stable and systematic way of financing, the weak monitoring of the consulting procedure and the lack of agencies that will direct farmers to innovative methods of producing agricultural products.	● The global threat of climate change is now an important factor based on which agricultural advisory services must be adapted and directed towards the logic of sustainable management of agricultural resources and, consequently, the ecosystem. ● Consequently, actions such as organic agriculture, precision agriculture, sustainable management of natural resources and smart agriculture are the main topics of the FAS.
[43] Boczek et al. (2020).	Poland	An overview of the AKIS and FKIS, as well as the FAS in Poland.	In Poland, the AKIS is divided into two sectors: the agricultural AKIS, which falls under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and the forestry FKIS, whose responsibilities fall under the Ministry of Climate and Environment. As far as agricultural consultancy is concerned, three categories of providers are active: the public bodies, which consist of the Agricultural Advice Center with its branches, together with sixteen Voivodship Agricultural Advisory Centers, the National Network of Agricultural Chambers and the private farm advisors. The structure of forestry advisory services is similar, as these services are provided both by public bodies (State Forests) and also by private ones.
[44] Ingram et al. (2022).	Europe countries	Evaluation of the advisory services of European countries in the context of sustainable soil management.	The need for accessing the content of soil management advice and overall support for the transition from traditional farming to the enhancement of healthy soil has increased. Fragmentation compromises soil at the farm level by creating competition for clients and funding projects. There is a noted challenge of funding, equipment, resources and staff necessary for organizations to give SSM advice effectively. The move to integrate SSM in multiple European Commission strategies and the ambitious targets set will result in an increased requirement for building capacities and a knowledge base for improved practices.	● SSM advisors require higher levels of training and also to capitalize on their experience gained in their fieldwork and their general motivation towards the SSM sector. ● Member states will be required to enhance their Agricultural Advisory Service (AAS) capacities to achieve the desired transition through an effective combination of national and EU policies. ● Future research should cover the incentivizing nature of market drivers and emerging policies toward enhanced capacities in AAS.
[45] Herzog et Neubauer (2020).	Austria	Evaluation of the Austrian AKIS.	The Austrian AKIS is based on adult education, comprehensive vocational training, a high-quality agricultural advisory network and a range of agricultural research. The local AKIS relies financially, to a significant extent, on public bodies. Reduced national funding of agricultural and forestry agencies, increased competition and farmers’ demands have resulted in a weakening of the links between them. The Austrian Chambers of Agriculture form the backbone of AKIS, in which the Agricultural Advisory System is integrated.	● Since the Austrian AKIS almost exclusively depends financially on state resources, the integrated planning of the actions and their adequate financing from the Common Agricultural Policy is necessary. ● The creation of a coordinating body for advisory services, training and research institutions would lead to the optimization of the operation of the Austrian AKIS.
[46] Banninger (2021).	Switzerland	Description of the Swiss AKIS and advisory services.	The Swiss AKIS is diverse and heterogeneous but strong. The advisory services are organized into two levels: direct advice from cantonal services and the AGRIDEA center, both publicly funded. Practically, knowledge transfer between research and farming is slow.	● A future challenge is to improve the processes of information transfer from research to agricultural practice and vice versa.
[47] Maher (2020).	Republic of Ireland	Description of the Irish AKIS, with an emphasis on methods of knowledge dissemination and innovation.	Teagasc is a national organization engaged in extension, research and agricultural education. It provides scientific information, accredited training and advisory services to Irish farmers. It is estimated that more than 75% of Irish farmers have access to advisory services. The Irish Government is not the sole funder of services provided by a public advisory service, as mixed and privately funded services coexist. The high level of training of Irish farmers has effectively changed the role of agricultural advisers from “teachers” to “facilitators” of agricultural knowledge exchange.	● The providers of agricultural advice and support within the framework of the AKIS must have knowledge in administrative and technical matters, aiming to better guide the farmers.
[48] Dunne et al. (2019).	Laois county, Republic of Ireland	Evaluating the interaction characteristics of public and private Farm Advisory Services in County Laois, Ireland.	The majority of Irish farmers have a strong linkage with agricultural extension services as they play a key role in enhancing farm income. In total, 30% of Irish farmers have no direct link to the extension services and are impossible to locate to interact with each other. Irish farmers, in terms of types of services, turn to both private and public agencies for agricultural advisory services. The majority of farmers receive agricultural advisory services at a superficial level from agricultural advisers. The advisory services have a limited scope and are not sufficient to cover the complex needs of the agricultural holdings and, more broadly, of the local agricultural society.	● There is significant room for improvement in the Irish AKIS, as the national extension services must also reach out to farmers who do not have direct contact with the institution of advisory services.
[49] Knuth and Knierim (2014).	Germany	Scientific bodies and providers of agricultural advisory services: finding ways to strengthen their relationship.	The agricultural advisers who are active in the Operational Groups must have more directness with the implementation of the EIP-AGRI. The agricultural advisers must have direct communication with the research bodies and, at the same time, communicate with each other.	● Expansion of the online Information System of Integrated Plant Production (ISIP) by strengthening communication links with regional agencies, organizing informational events, etc.
[50] Konecna (2018).	Czach Republic	Evaluation of the Institute of Agricultural Economy and Information (IAEI) regarding its innovation potential.	The IAEI plays a significant role in the AKIS process, representing a position of a mediator and a coordinator. The IAEI employees are active and eager to keep up with the new research trend.	● Close cooperation between IAEI departments can lead to significant development and diffusion of innovation in an AKIS system.
[2] Hermans et al. (2019).	England, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Switzerland	Effect of AKIS structural factors of eight European countries on cooperative schemes or social learning in innovation networks.	One of the major problems faced by all the countries under study is the lack of government funding for research, which leads to insecurity and increased competition. Many innovation policies are complex and unsuitable for evaluating the results of partnerships regarding sensitive issues, such as sustainable agriculture. As each country’s AKIS is unique due to its characteristics, it is very important to establish for each AKIS whether it is horizontally or vertically fragmented. Consideration should also be given to whether new actors should be involved or new innovations should be promoted.
[51] Klerkx et al. (2017).	Norway	Challenges for advisory services in serving various types of farmers seeking and acquiring farm business advice.	Emerging advisory configurations serve different types of farmers in different ways (subsystems). Three types of subsystems have been identified: the holistic, the elitist and the public goods. The Norwegian AKIS has been transformed from a public service to a private system.	● Policymakers must supervise the operation of these subsystems and actively participate as a regulator of their operation.
[52] Tamsalu (2021).	Estonia	Presentation of the AKIS in Estonia.	The AKIS in Estonia can be characterized as relatively fragmented and with weak ties between actors. Due to the relatively small geographical area that Estonia occupies, the people involved in various AKIS actors know each other. Agricultural advisory services and agricultural education are mainly provided by public bodies and supplemented by private companies.	● Agricultural advisers need to be renewed as the existing ones are old. At the same time, however, there is a reluctance of young people to undertake such services. ● More adequate funding for agricultural research is needed; otherwise, the system will lead to a loss of local agricultural knowledge. ● A coordinating body must be created that will organize and direct the actors of the AKIS.
[53] Kania and Zmija (2016).	Poland	How cooperation between AKIS stakeholders is assessed from the standpoint of the 16 provincial Agricultural Advisory Centers (ODRs).	The implementation of the Polish AKIS lags behind significantly as it consists of a large number of factors, the interconnection of which is weak. An important disadvantage is the lack of communication between farmers and research and agricultural knowledge creation agencies.	● Optimizing communication channels between the actors that make up an AKIS system.

below presents the literature review articles, the countries they refer to and the research conclusions, as well as the proposed improvements.

Summarizing the results of Table 1, we find that there is significant variation in the degree of implementation of the AKIS in each EU country. There are countries in which the system is effectively implemented for the benefit of farmers and breeders. At the same time, in most EU countries, there are significant problems that hinder the effectiveness of the system, such as the dissemination and feedback of agricultural knowledge or the addressing of institutional barriers, and there is significant room for improvement in the future. Finally, there are also some countries in which the system is essentially under-functioning without any benefit for the farmers.

4. Discussion

4.1. AKIS and FAS in the Foreground through the New CAP

In the European Union, the AKIS concept is used as a guideline for the modernization of the agricultural sector and, at the same time, its transition to sustainable models of natural resource management in agriculture and animal husbandry using innovative methods. The idea of AKIS now concerns the leaders of the EU member states at a central level, which is a key component of the CAP and concerns all those employed in agricultural production, such as academics, researchers, agricultural advisors, national organizations implementing agricultural policies and agricultural supply companies, and, of course, focus on the farmer.

The traditional linear extension model can no longer be sustained, as agricultural advisors are increasingly using Information and Communications Technologies, where there is unlimited information and many applications and tools at their disposal. Assessing the behavior of European farmers, foresters and agricultural advisors regarding the frequency of seeking information on digital transformation, the research showed that farmers’ online search focuses on multimedia (photos and videos) as opposed to text. Dissemination of knowledge data through multimedia is easier and more demonstrative, and this facilitates the stakeholders [5].

Evaluating the bibliography data, we find that the country with the strongest AKIS is the Republic of Ireland. It is estimated that more than 75% of Irish farmers have access to advisory services. Also, the high level of training of Irish farmers has effectively changed the role of agricultural advisers from “teachers” to “facilitators” of agricultural knowledge exchange [47].

Denmark and Austria round out the top three EU countries with the strongest and most stable AKISs. The Danish AKIS and the agricultural advisory services were first implemented many years ago and, over the years, have evolved and established themselves as models in Europe that fully meet the needs of Danish farmers. [37]. The Austrian AKIS is based on adult education, comprehensive vocational training, a high-quality agricultural advisory network and a range of agricultural research. It relies financially, to a significant extent, on public bodies [45].

Precision agriculture tools as a method of innovation and the factors influencing or hindering their application in agricultural practice were evaluated. The results of the research confirm the essential relevance of the Italian AKIS in the innovation adoption process. In the context of evaluating the degree of application of innovative methods in agricultural production and identifying difficulties in Italian agricultural holdings, the sequence awareness-knowledge-adoption-product (AKAP) was applied. Regarding the socio-economic profile of farmers who adopt precision farming methods, it mainly concerns men, young age and relatively high educational level, which are leaders of large farms, as the benefits are judged to be long-term. The Farm Advisory Services play an important role in all phases, confirming that innovation actors develop a competence portfolio able to affect the various steps of the AKAP sequence [12].

The Spanish AKIS has similar characteristics to the Italian one. It is highly fragmented. However, the efficiency of the transfer of agricultural knowledge from the advisers to the Spanish farmers remains at a high level despite the diversity presented in the Spanish AKIS [15].

A typical example of a country whose AKIS is highly fragmented but with very strong ties between the actors is the Netherlands. The Dutch AKIS is strong and internationally oriented. This fragmentation is caused by a lack of common vision among the AKIS actors. This led the government to implement a subsidized voucher system that allows farmers to seek advice and training toward a common direction [27].

On the contrary, Greece, Portugal and Romania have the weakest AKISs, as they are very fragmented, with weak bonds between the actors that make them up. The Greek AKIS appears extremely ineffective. The lack of effective coordination of the actors by the national institutions and, consequently, the weak interconnection between them led to this fact [24]. The Portuguese AKIS is particularly problematic, as there is a lack of coordination by the public authorities of the large number of actors that make it up. It consists of four groups of actors. The first includes Farming- and Forestry-based associations, the second includes Knowledge and Innovation providers, the third includes Public Directories, and the last is Research and Education [16].

Advisory services that interact with farmers are an essential part of an AKIS and refer to the agencies charged with providing agricultural advice, solving problems and co-creating agricultural knowledge. It is noteworthy that in France, there are approximately 23,500 farm advisors, a number that corresponds to 20 farmers for every farm advisor [14]. A cornerstone of the Danish AKIS is the Danish Agricultural Advisory System (DAAS), together with the Agricultural Knowledge Center (SEGES) and 29 agricultural advisory centers. However, an important disadvantage of the system is the reduction of advisory centers in the country [37].

As far as the Farm Advisory Services in the EU are concerned, it is clear that private agricultural advisory providers have prevailed. This dominance has led to a fragmentation of advice rather than a plurality of decision support channels [8].

Furthermore, the agricultural advice that farmers receive often has conflicting or overlapping content, and this results from the dispersion of responsibilities in the public sector [6]. In southwestern France, the research shows the significant diversity of the agricultural advisors that farmers have access to, as well as the process of joining the AKIS. Also, a high differentiation of agricultural advisory services was found [7] (Laurent et al., 2021).

Despite this, there are public organizations that are still the main bodies of outreach to farmers. In the Republic of Ireland, the Teagasc dominates. It is a national organization engaged in extension, research and agricultural education. It provides scientific information, accredited training and advisory services to Irish farmers [47].

According to the literature coming from the countries of the former Yugoslavia, such as Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia, the main weakness of the FAS is the inability to transfer agricultural knowledge and research from the responsible actors to the farmers and breeders. At the same time, the feedback of the FAS, which is extremely important for the countries, is virtually non-existent as, for now, it is mainly about the evaluation of the services of the advisers and less about the effects of the advice on agricultural activity [18,19,20]. A similar issue occurs in other EU countries, such as Italy, where the FAS still has little connection between agricultural research and the knowledge needs of farmers, while the issues discussed by the agricultural advisers mainly concern Rural Development Programs and Cross-Compliance and not so much innovation [31].

4.2. Improving the Effectiveness of an AKIS

Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems are now an integral part of the current Common Agricultural Policy, as they have been integrated into the strategic planning drawn up by each member state. Through the CAP, it is possible to finance actions aimed at the exchange of knowledge and the provision of agricultural advice, with a view to the modernization of agricultural production using innovative methods. The implementation of an AKIS in each country in previous years was not as effective, as each country has its own structures and peculiarities. This, on the one hand, helped to improve the agricultural production processes and, on the other hand, highlighted weaknesses, which the member states are called upon to recognize and improve in the future.

In the context of the bibliographic review of this paper, many researchers propose measures that could possibly improve the operation of the AKIS in the country where the research is carried out. According to the data of the overview, the country with the greatest scope for improvement and increase in efficiency from the implementation of AKIS is Greece. The simplification of legislative procedures, the creation of new structures, the development of new Rural Development Programs and the concentration of the Greek agricultural sector in the production of agricultural products with high added value can lead to the optimal implementation of the Greek AKIS [9].

The effective operation of an AKIS depends on the degree of interaction of the factors that make it up. In many EU countries, there is significant room for improvement in this parameter, as the great diversity of the factors of a system leads to its poor efficiency. In Germany, the interconnection between universities, research institutes and ministries at the national level with the rest of the AKIS actors must be strengthened [17]. In Slovenia, it is essential to establish links between AKIS actors, which cannot operate on their own, and to strengthen cooperation with the private sector. Furthermore, a coordinating mechanism is necessary [20]. Even though the Flemish AKIS is considered one of the most effective, there is significant room for improvement, especially in the field of innovation [26]. In Latvia, it is necessary to strengthen the institutional coordinating bodies to promote cooperation [33]. Finally, in Poland, it is very important to optimize the communication channels between the actors that make up the AKIS, as they will make it more effective [53].

The dissemination of agricultural knowledge and research from academics and research agents to farmers is a key parameter to optimize the operation of an AKIS. In France, it is necessary for cross-cutting knowledge transfer activity, from needs identification to massive dissemination, knowing that the optimization of the transfer will lead to the refinement of the solutions [14]. The AKIS in Serbia in the future will give special attention to the transfer of research results to the end users, trying to keep the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in agriculture in the joint action, whose aim is to transfer knowledge to farmers and processors [19]. In the Netherlands, education, which remains the only factor of the Dutch AKIS that has not been privatized, can, in the future, play a key role in the effort to create a more solid system [27]. In the Hungarian AKIS, there is a need to increase the flow of knowledge between research and practice, with simultaneous assessment of farmers’ needs and sharing of assessment findings with agricultural advisors [28]. Furthermore, in Sweden and Finland, in order to strengthen the linkage between farming and research, scientists must understand the farming process better [10,13].

Agricultural advisory providers are the link between farmers and education and research institutions. Consequently, they should be substantial and effective. In Serbia, the feedback from the provision of agricultural advisory services should be more about the effects of the advice on agricultural practice and less about recording the activities of the advisers [19]. Furthermore, it is very important that agricultural advisory services operate as innovation facilitators [30]. In Latvia and Estonia, there is an urgent need for new agricultural advisers to enter the labor market, as a large number of existing advisers are old [33,52]. In countries where the FAS is highly developed, such as Denmark, and combined with the high level of training of Danish farmers, it poses a challenge or even a threat to traditional agricultural advisory companies and may lead to the creation of new schemes [37]. In light of the recent challenges related to climate change, it is expected that the advisory services will be oriented on the area of ecosystem adaptation [42]. Overall, farm advisors require higher levels of training to capitalize on the experience gained in their fieldwork and their general motivation [44].

The implementation of an Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System is now becoming crucial for the development of a country’s agricultural sector, as the challenges that have been presented to date and will be presented in the future require solutions that will lead to the optimization of agricultural production, the increase of agricultural income and the sustainable management of the environment.

5. Conclusions

The first characteristic based on which EU countries differ concerns the degree of decentralization observed in the implementation of the AKIS. In the first group, the so-called “central” models are classified in most countries in which there is national coordination in the implementation of the AKIS. In Germany, Belgium, Spain and Italy, the “decentralized” model of administration is observed, as the regional administrations supervise the implementation of the AKIS.

It is obvious that for the orderly and efficient operation of an AKIS, well-organized bodies and, at the same time, mechanisms for coordinating the factors that make up a system are required. Regarding agricultural advisory services in the EU, the fragmentation of public services has led to a plethora of disconnected actors delivering either duplicate or conflicting advice to farmers, with potential tensions between public and private goods advice. The feedback of the agricultural advisory services is also very important, as this way, the needs of the farmers will be properly assessed, and consequently, their cooperation will be more effective.

By comparing the implementation of AKISs in the EU with corresponding systems outside the EU, in the effort to modernize the Chinese agricultural sector in the 1990s, a model of innovation and transformation of agricultural technology called ASTP was created. Since 2001, the development of the National ASTPs has entered an innovative phase of development. The Chinese state has established tens of thousands of Parks, which are charged with disseminating agricultural science and innovation. In this case, the feedback of agricultural needs and then the provision of the corresponding agricultural advice is considered very important [54].

The digital transformation of agriculture is now imperative, and therefore, agricultural advisory providers must have sufficient knowledge of the subject, as well as access to information and data to support farmers and guide them in the new era.

The current Programming Period of the CAP 2023–2027 is an opportunity, through the funds provided in its budget, and coordination is required by the national services of the member states to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of the AKIS. This will enable European farmers to switch to more sustainable production models and, thus, become more competitive in the global market.

The mandatory implementation of the AKIS in the EU essentially starts from the current Program Period (2023–2027), and thus, it was extremely difficult to find the appropriate literature for this work. At the same time, there is a huge scope for future study and research, especially after the end of the current Programming Period, concerning, among others, corresponding systems outside the EU.