The second survey was dedicated to researchers of the Swiss centre for agricultural research. They were four group chiefs and four scientific collaborators. The main area of research was fruits and medicinal plants. The respondents reported 113 collaborations; 65 formal collaborations and 48 informal collaborations with external partners. The average length of the formal collaborations was 66 months with a lot of renewable contract of minimum 12 months. Figure 3-9 highlights the links between the Swiss research centre for agricultural research and its partners.
Figure 3-9: Edges of the Swiss national research centre for agriculture
In Table 3-3, actors are aggregated in categories like research and technical institutes or universities. The goals of exchanges in both formal and informal collaborations were knowledge transfer, information exchange and materials (i.e. fruits, analysis devices) exchange. Collaborations topics were diverse including marketing, quality, diseases, preservation, storage, breeding, post- harvesting, co-publication, students’ internships, project redaction. Laboratory analyses are also performed. Outputs are diffused through co-publications, common reports, oral presentations in conferences and thematic days targeting the sector, society and scientific community.
Categories of actors Geographical
proximity6 Number of citations Percentage
Research and technical institutes 15 44.1
Agroscope + 10 29.4
FiBL - 2 5.9
INRA - 2 5.9
CTIFL - 1 2.9
Policy and professional
associations 11 32.4 Cantonal Office of Arboriculture + 10 29.4 IFELV + 1 2.9 Universities 8 23.5 EPFL - 1 2.9 UAS Valais-Wallis + 3 8.8 University of Bologna - 1 2.9 Ecole d’Agriculture du Valais + 2 5.9 Ecole d’Agriculture de
Changins
- 1 2.9
Total 34 100%
Table 3-3. Swiss apricot network interactions on knowledge and innovation creation Many links are established with research and technical institutes, cited by 44.1% (15 citations) and policy bodies and associations (11 citations). Agroscope predominated in collaboration activities with 29.4% of the total collaborations reported. However, UAS Valais-Wallis had few connections with stakeholders (three citations).
Eighty-six collaborations have been reported by the eight researchers interviewed. 44.58% are formal collaborations, 27.71% are informal and the rest are both formal and informal. These collaborations are established with many partners, ranging from the apricot value chain to research centres in Switzerland and abroad. 21.25% of collaborations are with other research centres in Europe, 16.25% with nurseries, 15% with universities, and 15% with other private firms. The remaining partners are phytosanitary firms, producers, transformers, warehouse keepers, retailers, public bodies, associations/advisers, professional organisations and working groups/forums.
Additionally, market data was collected through archival data and two interviews with an agro- scientist collaborator of the Cantonal Office of Arboriculture and the director of the Interprofession des Fruits et Légumes du Valais (IFELV). The innovation strategy of one of the two biggest retailers in Switzerland was investigated by interviewing the chief of fresh products using an open questionnaire.
6 Geographical proximity is defined as close (+) if the organization or firm is located in the Valais region, far (-)
Most actors are located in Switzerland. Therefore, geographical proximity is not sufficient to establish interactions. This result is surprising as 28% of the respondents are training agronomists and oenologist engineers who studied in the UAS. This can probably be explained by the mandates of the different institutions. The high implication of Agroscope and the Cantonal Office of Arboriculture in collaborations reveals a catalyst role by transferring knowledge through translation of research outputs into ready-to-use information and innovation in practice. They have closer cognitive proximity to the respondents than other nodes in the network.
The contacts established with collaboration partners were mainly previously established contacts (60 times cited). Twenty-two collaborations started without previous established contact with partners and ten collaborations were made through common intermediaries. Previously contacts are a basis for new collaborations. Furthermore, the level of impact was reported by respondents. Three levels of impact of collaboration projects were defined; regional (Valais), national (Swiss) and international (Europe). Twelve collaborations had a regional level of impact, 54 national and 47 international. This supports a trend of openness of the network.
Except for one stakeholder and the high rate for rarely contacts cited, the overall trend is a scarce use of communication with partners. This might be explained by the nature of collaborations established. Since there are more formal collaborations, calendar meetings are defined all along the projects. Hence, there might have a mid-term frame for these contacts, consequently less frequent communications.
Financial collaborations were investigated between the University of Applied Sciences and Agroscope. Four projects were started between 2013 and 2016 (question asked to the respondent)7;
one European project of FP7, one Swiss Food Research Call and two national projects. These include research on quality parameters of berry fruits, related to agronomic factors; valorisation of berries with extrusion technology; improvement of knowledge transfer for innovation (TRAFOON project); and exchanges of services like analytics of plant compounds or fruits. The project duration varied from one to five years, ending with diverse co-publications. These projects endorsed the formal type of collaborations that exist between the two partners in the region. Nevertheless, the two actors are poorly connected in the network.
3.6.2 Implemented innovations
Actors of the apricot supply chain create and adopt different types of innovations through collaborations. To identify the rate of innovation, the question asked to the producers was ‘Did your firm introduce a new product, process, marketing or organisation in the last three years?’, hence in the period 2012-2015. They had to tell how many innovations were concerned.
7 Only projects including the Agroscope site in Valais and the UAS site in Valais are reported. A few more projects
concerned UAS-Valais and Agroscope-Liebefeld-Posieux. The purposes of the two projects were related to the crystallization of cocoa butter and reducing of sugar in yogurt.
Table 3-4 reports types of innovations implemented recently cited by in the 19 interviews of the apricot value chain stakeholders.
Yes No N/A Total
New product 16 2 1 19
New process 7 11 1 19
New organization 6 12 1 19
New marketing 9 9 1 19
Table 3-4. Type of innovations implemented between 2012 and 2015
The main type of innovation implemented is product innovation (16). Process innovations, organization innovations and marketing innovations were implemented approximately at the same rate. Stakeholders implemented 122 product innovations, 15 process innovations, 7 organization innovations and 10 marketing innovations.