Romania’s agriculture innovation system performance remains below that than in peer countries and the system suffers from fragmentation and strong regional disparities. While agricultural innovation has gained visibility in recent policy documents, prioritising implementation remains challenging. This chapter examines Romania’s Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS), focusing on the key actors, institutions, governance arrangements, and funding sources. The chapter examines research and development performance, discusses policies that facilitate innovation and knowledge transfer, and showcases projects contributing to agricultural sustainability through innovation.
Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Romania
Abstract
Romania’s overall innovation system displays a low performance and significant regional disparities compared to peer countries. While agricultural innovation is gaining traction in strategic plans and policies, their implementation remains challenging.
The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Romania is generally weak and fragmented, with limited co-operation between the different AKIS actors. Romania’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plan 2023-27 and other EU-level initiatives offer an opportunity to strengthen co-operation and knowledge flows for the benefit of agricultural innovation.
Agricultural knowledge and innovation are primarily financed through public expenditures, but these investments are relatively limited compared to the needs of the sector, notably in areas such as farm advisory services and research and development.
Romania’s AKIS relies heavily on the EU funding and instruments, but low levels of uptake of CAP measures supporting innovation suggests a limited capacity of the sector to absorb innovation funding.
Romania’s farmers have the lowest level of education in the European Union, with only 5% having completed agricultural secondary or tertiary education. This poses a significant challenge for the future of the agricultural sector and suggests significant scope for agricultural counselling.
Farm advisory services are unable to meet the diverse needs of farmers to facilitate the transformation of the sector. Despite some recent initiatives, such as investments in the modernisation of agricultural schools and the upgrade of their practical and IT laboratories, addressing the existing gaps in agricultural training and education remains challenging.
Romania has made notable progress in connectivity, significantly closing the broadband access gap between rural and urban areas. However, the low level of digital literacy may hinder the development and adoption of agricultural innovations.
Agricultural innovation serves as a crucial tool in addressing the multifaceted challenges and opportunities encountered by the sector. It not only drives productivity growth through the adoption of more efficient tools and processes, but also enhances environmental sustainability by introducing novel techniques and technologies to mitigate the negative impacts of certain farming practices.
In this context, the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS), which links all relevant actors, resource flows, and institutions in this area, constitutes a cornerstone in fostering the generation of relevant research and developments (R&D), facilitating knowledge flows among stakeholders, and enabling the diffusion of innovative practices and technologies.
This chapter analyses the Romanian agricultural innovation system. Section 4.2 provides a snapshot of the main characteristics of the country’s innovation system and outlines the main strategies defining the framework. Section 4.3 presents the main AKIS actors and institutions, as well as funding sources for innovation activities. Section 4.4 discusses policies that facilitate innovation and knowledge transfer, while Section 4.5 looks at R&D performance and showcases examples of innovation for agricultural sustainability. Finally, Section 4.6 provides conclusions.
4.2.1. Performance of the Romanian innovation system
Romania’s innovation system exhibits relatively low performance and significant regional disparities
The Romanian innovation system comprises four types of research and development (R&D) institutions: national institutes; research units of the Romanian Academy; branch academies of the different ministries; and higher education research institutions. These institutions operate with a certain degree of autonomy, each with its own funding mechanisms, and oversight from different ministries.
The report of the Horizon Policy Support Facility (EC, 2022[1]) identified several areas where improvements could enhance Romania’s R&D performance. Institutional instability and fragmentation, along with unpredictable funding, pose significant challenges for research and innovation, leading to a weak public science base. Additionally, working conditions vary greatly between different institutions and the system struggles to attract and retain young researchers. Moreover, despite some progress, the operationalisation of the governance framework of research, development and innovation (R&D&I) strategies remains weak, negatively influencing the elaboration and implementation of R&D&I policies (EC, 2021[2]). Currently, reforms are underway to reduce the fragmentation of the national R&D system by merging research institutions.
The Romanian innovation system is rated among low performers with regional disparities though with a positive perspective. In terms of innovation capacities measured by the Global Innovation Index (GII), Romania ranked 49th among the 132 economies featured in 2022, and 31st among the 39 European economies (WIPO, 2022[3]). The European Innovation Scoreboard categorises Romania as an “emerging innovator”,1 with an overall innovation index (35.9) ranking it at the bottom of the EU in 2023 (EC, 2023[4]). Moreover, Romania’s innovation performance is advancing at a slower pace than the EU average, further exacerbating the gap with other European countries (EC, 2023[5]). According to the Regional Innovation Scoreboard (EC, 2023[6]), all eight Romanian development regions are “emerging innovators”. However, regional disparities are notable, with the best-performing region, Bucuresti – Ilfov (RO32), scoring more than three times higher than the lowest-performing region, Sud-Est (RO22).
4.2.2. Policy approach and framework: National and regional strategies
The National Strategy for Research, Innovation and Smart Specialisation 2021-2027 (SNCISI) outlines a broad vision for innovation and digitalisation with limited focus on agriculture. Innovation in agricultural is shaped by the Romania’s Strategy for Research and Development and Innovation in Agriculture and Rural Development 2014-20, and by Romania’s CAP Strategic Plan (CSP) for 2023-27 (see Chapter 2), which specifically targets agriculture and includes elements relevant to enhancing knowledge and innovation within the sector.
Bioeconomy and digital economy are at the heart of the National Strategy for Research, Innovation and Smart Specialisation
The National Strategy for Research, Innovation and Smart Specialisation 2021-2027 (SNCISI) is a comprehensive policy document crafted by the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitisation (MRID) and adopted by the Romanian Government in 2022 through Government Decision no. 933/2022. This strategy provides a long-term vision for the overall innovation system in Romania, superseding the previous National Research, Development and Innovation Strategy 2014-2020 (SNCDI). Structured around four overarching objectives, the SNCISI aims to advance the R&D&I system; foster innovation ecosystems associated with smart specialisations; mobilise resources towards innovation; and intensify collaboration at European and international level. Each general objective corresponds to several specific goals, as well as actions and expected impacts. The SNCISI incorporates also regional smart specialisation strategies (S3s), with the overall objective of building competitive advantage and preparedness by aligning research strengths with business demands, as well as promoting an innovative economic transformation and regional connectivity through Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Guvernul României, 2022[7]).
In addition to providing a global vision for the broader innovation ecosystem, the SNCISI also delineates specific focus areas. The Strategic Research Agenda laid out in this document encompasses critical domains such as “Food, bioeconomy, natural resources, biodiversity, agriculture and environment” alongside “Digitisation, industry and space”. Both National and Regional Smart Specialisations Strategies incorporate elements pertinent to the agricultural sector, with areas for smart specialisation determined through entrepreneurial discovery process and online exploratory consultations.
At the national level, the SNCISI identifies “bioeconomy” and “digital economy” among its seven target areas for smart specialisation, highlighting their significant potential for economic and social spillovers and potential significant benefits from intranational collaboration. While the “bioeconomy” encompasses agriculture-related domains like breeding of seeds and breeds; technologies for organic farming, agro-ecology and forestry; and agriculture 4.0, as well as safe and sustainable food for a healthy diet; the “digital economy” focuses rather on enabling technologies, such as applications based on intelligent sensor networks, traceability enabling technologies or cognitive robotics.
At the regional level, smart specialisation areas were tailored to local needs. All eight development regions referred in their strategies to agriculture or food:
The North-east Region intends to create and transfer systematic, sustainable innovation with societal benefits in the key areas, including the agro-food and wood industry.
The Bucharest-Ilfov Region prioritises digital monitoring and control solutions for environmental and agricultural purposes.
The South-Muntenia Region recognises precision agriculture and functional food (new healthy and nutritionally enriched food products) as important niches.
The West Region identifies various aspects of agro-food industry, including biotechnology, crop and animal breeding, biosecurity and variety certification, processing of local and value-added products, as well as biofuel production (Guvernul României, 2022[7]; MARD, 2023[8]).
The implementation of SNCISI is carried out through plans and programmes at national and regional level, with a wide range of ministries involved in this process (Section 4.3.2). Key implementation instruments include: the National Research, Development and Innovation Plan IV (PNCDI IV); sector-specific R&I plans developed by other ministries; and the R&D Plan of the Romanian Academy and its branches. Additionally, several programmes funded under the EU Cohesion Policy for the periods 2014-22, and 2023-27, such as the Smart Growth, Digitalization and Financial Instruments programme (POCIDIF), Regional Operational Programmes, and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, contribute significantly to financing Romanian R&I initiatives (Section 4.3.6).
Agricultural innovation is gaining prominence in strategic plans and policies, but operationalisation remains challenging
Romania endeavoured to incorporate innovation aspects into their Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) for both 2007-13 and 2014-22. However, as analysed in the subsequent sections, the level of education among Romanian farmers remains relatively low, the presence of agricultural advisors is quite limited, and though relevant funding is available, it does not always reach AKIS actors promptly.
More recently, the strengthening of knowledge exchange, innovation and digitalisation has been set as a horizontal goal of the CAP 2023-27. EU Member States are required to integrate their AKIS strategies into their CSPs (OECD, 2023[9]). Romania’s CSP (see Chapter 2), outlines the envisaged approaches to modernising the AKIS in Romania by changing the organisational configuration of the system around four key components (MARD, 2022[10]).
1. The establishment of the AKIS Coordination Body, tasked with developing strategy, overseeing and co-ordinating AKIS activities and gathering information on emerging needs in terms of training, advice and innovation topics.
2. The creation of the AKIS Support Unit to facilitate interactions between relevant actors (see next section) and endorse topics proposed by the Coordination Unit.
3. The implementation of the AKIS Digital Platform, serving as a HUB, to integrate relevant entities, facilitate information flows on proposals for research topics, research results, or available training opportunities.
4. The improvement of agricultural business counselling by strengthening its connections within AKIS and catalysing knowledge exchange, particularly in addressing local thematic needs.
The implementation of the above components began with the procurement process for the design and development of the AKIS Digital Platform, which will serve as the main tool for the AKIS Coordination Body and support other CSP objectives.
While the CSP provides support for knowledge transfer and innovation development, Romania’s Strategy for Research-Development-Innovation in the agri-food sector for medium and long term 2014‑2020/2020-2030 (Strategia Pentru Cercetare‐Dezvoltare-Inovare În Domeniul Agroalimentar Pe Termen Medium Şi Lung 2014-2020 / 2020-2023) aims at adopting a holistic approach and providing strategic direction to bolster R&D&I in agriculture and create a conducive environment for sustainable agriculture growth along the direction set by agricultural policies (MARD, 2015[11]). The objectives incorporated in these strategies are reflected in the Agricultural and Rural Development (ADER) Sectorial Plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD).
The proposed set of initiatives includes restructuring the agricultural research system; increasing the national funding for multi-annual research programmes to 2% of GDP; attracting private sector investments; integrating national and sectoral research programmes; focusing on thematic priories related to the EU convergence policy objectives and global challenges such as climate change mitigation and adaptation; fostering technical progress and developing infrastructure; boosting the appeal of scientific careers in agriculture; and strengthening agricultural education through collaboration with the Ministry of Education (Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Services, 2011[12]).
The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) encompasses a diverse array of stakeholders crucial for enabling, guiding, funding and implementing innovation within the agricultural sector. The key participants include policy-makers, researchers, teachers, advisors, farmers, private companies, consumers and non-profit organisations (OECD, 2020[13]). In Romania, the AKIS includes, among others, research and extension providers, as well as educational institutions, which are structured and governed through agricultural, science and educational policies. The main actors are presented in Figure 4.1.
4.3.1. Main actors of the AKIS and their role in agricultural innovation
Strengthening co-operation between actors will open opportunities for the Romanian AKIS
The AKIS in Romania is relatively weak and fragmented. The system is marked by a history of frequent and not always consistent modifications. Policies have not been able to consistently improve the coherence and functioning of the AKIS, which is still characterised by isolated subsystems heavily influenced by sectoral policies and weak linkages among actors. For instance, agricultural higher education institutions and agricultural research institutes operate separately, and they rarely integrate agricultural consultancies and training to farmers (EC, 2020[14]; Rusu, 2014[15]). Co-operation between farmers and research entities is also lean, making it difficult to identify research-based solutions tailored to farmers’ needs (MARD, 2023[8]) and hindering the adoption of solutions on the ground (EC, 2020[14]).
The modernisation of AKIS has been on Romania’s agenda for a long time, with several projects, including in co-operation with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the World Bank (Rusu, 2014[15]). More recently, the National Rural Network organised activities to connect research actors, such as universities and Horizon 2020 projects partners, with farmers, advisors and rural businesses. Despite these efforts, the Romanian AKIS still has ample room for development to maximise benefits for farmers.
This state of affairs may improve, however, if Romania seizes the opportunity and implements with more ambition its CSP provisions to create a modern, well-functioning AKIS, Romania’s CSP aims to create bridges between farmers and institutions and organisations specialised in agricultural knowledge and innovation, as well as to strengthen knowledge transfers and agricultural advisory services through dedicated funding (Section 4.4.1) (CRPE, 2023[16]). Moreover, Romania is exploring avenues to better integrate local action groups (LAGs),2 co-operatives, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), innovation and technological transfer entities of the National Network for Innovation and Technological Transfer, clusters and poles of competitiveness, and Digital Innovation Hubs (DIH) (MARD, 2023[8]).
Note: This is a schematic representation of the main actors and knowledge flows within Romanian AKIS. The categories of actors are not always sharply distinguishable and overlaps between their boundaries and roles may occur. For example, universities may conduct research alongside their educational activities. The indication of knowledge and collaboration flows is not exhaustive, i.e. only the most important ones are depicted. As of June 2024, the AKIS Coordination Body is in the process of being established.
Source: Authors, based on MARD (2023[8]).
4.3.2. Main public authorities
National authorities play a key role in AKIS policy development as well as in its implementation through subordinate institutions
Romania’s institutional framework supporting research, development, and innovation (R&D&I) in general, and those specific to the agro-food sector, has undergone many changes over recent decades. As a result of governmental changes, new entities were replacing old ones and responsibilities were shifting among existing entities (EC, 2022[17]).
The AKIS governance structure is based on two territorial levels. At the national level, a pivotal role is held by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitisation (MCID) and Ministry of Education (ME), which collectively steer the strategic direction for innovation in the agro-food sector. Other ministries also contribute to creating a conducive environment for R&D&I. At the county level, County Agricultural Directorates (CADs) are currently responsible for implementing agricultural policies, while payment agencies manage the financial resources.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADR) holds primary responsibility for innovation systems within the agricultural sector. The MARD manages the R&D Sector Plan for Agriculture, the National R&D Strategy for the agro-food sector, and the CSP, which includes measures for agricultural knowledge and innovation, and R&D&I co-operation. The implementation of agricultural policies and strategies is delegated to the 42 County Agricultural Directorates (CADs), decentralised public service under the purview of the MARD.3 CADs are mandated by legislation4 to engage in activities such as statistics and the Farm Accounting Data Network (FADN); provision of technical assistance; offering information, guidance and counselling for farmers on accessing European and national funds; as well as carrying out monitoring, inspections and controls within specified areas (MARD, 2023[8]).
The Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitalisation (MCID) serves as the primary authority responsible for overseeing general R&D efforts in Romania. It sets strategic objectives, which are enshrined among others in the National Strategy for Research, Innovation and Smart Specialisation (SNCISI), and introduces specific instruments for implementing the strategies, such as the National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation. Moreover, the MCID co‑ordinates government policy at the national level, oversees most of the national R&D institutes, monitors R&D activity levels, and occasionally independently implements programme components (EC, 2022[17]). In 2020, the Authority for the Digitisation of Romania was established, first under the co-ordination of the prime minister and later under the MCID, to oversee the implementation of strategies and public policies in the area of digital transformation of Romanian society (Government of Romania, 2020[18]). Additionally, the Digital Policy Lab (DPL) was created as a testing ground for the strategic approach and process of public policy making. It aims to facilitate the development of an ecosystem of infrastructures, processes, tools and networks that generate innovation in the process of formulating public policies (MARD, 2023[8]).5
The Ministry of Education (ME) assumes the responsibility for overseeing public education, training and scientific research at the universities in Romania. It has developed a strategic framework for education, the “Educated Romania 2030” vision, and monitors the application of the package of associated education laws. Moreover, the ME allocates state funds to public universities and supervises the Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding (UEFISCDI). The agency implements and co-ordinates some of the programmes and subprogrammes of the National Research, Development and Innovation Plan (PNCDI IV), including “Partnerships for innovation”, “European and international co-operation”, and “Research in areas of strategic interest” (EC, 2022[17]; MIPE, 2024[19]).
While other ministries are not entrusted with direct responsibilities in R&D&I, they play a role in creating an enabling environment for innovation. For example, the Ministry of Economy, Entrepreneurship and Tourism is tasked with formulating policies in fields such as the economy, industry, competitiveness, intellectual property, inventions and trademarks, SMEs, entrepreneurship, trade, and foreign direct investment (EC, 2022[17]). Meanwhile, the Ministry of Finance oversees R&D tax incentives, which may be available to all taxpayers and legal entities, including farmers carrying out R&D activities (MARD, 2023[8]).6
4.3.3. Agricultural research
Agricultural research efforts, mainly spearheaded by top-down steered public institutes, are hampered by insufficient funding
In Romania, agricultural research is mostly carried out by the public research institutes (see Box 4.1). In addition to research activities, some public research centres also offer demonstration activities or professional retraining courses for agriculture and animal husbandry workers. In contrast, the private sector’s involvement in agro-food research is less extensive. Independent, private research suppliers usually focus on applied research, funded by their own financial resources from various projects. A number of large enterprises in the field of agro-chemistry, seeds, agricultural machinery, and software also conduct their own R&D&I activities (Rusu, 2014[15]).
While the number of public research institutions remained relatively constant in the 2010s, the number of private companies active in agricultural research decreased by more than half (EC, 2020[14]), implying a notable consolidation of private research efforts. Currently, 315 private and 256 public research and development units operate in Romania, collectively covering a wide thematic spectrum of agro-food innovation and technology transfer activities (MARD, 2023[8]).
Romanian public institutes, research centres and stations relevant to the agro-food sector cover a wide range of research topics and are financed through governmental grants and income generated from national and international competition-winning projects; service and research contracts; royalties from biological creations; sales of agricultural products, such as seeds, planting stock, breeding animals, obtained in the development departments; or consulting services.
Research themes range from broad areas such as food safety and nutrition, consumer science and food (bio)technologies (e.g. National Institute for Research and Development in Food Bioresources – IBA) to more specialised areas such as field crop cultivation (e.g. INCDA Fundulea); vegetable growing (Research and Development Institute for Vegetable and Flower Growing – Vidra); potatoes and sugar beet cultivation (e.g. National Research and Development Institute for Potatoes and Sugar Beet Brasov – INCDCSZ); horticulture, including fruit growing (e.g. Institute for Research and Development in Pomiculture – Pitești, Mărăcineni), viticulture (e.g. Research and Development Institute for Viticulture and Winemaking, Valea Călugărească) and horticultural biotechnologies (e.g. National Research and Development Institute for Biotechnology in Horticulture Ștefănești – Argeș); sand plant cultivation (Research and Development Station for Sand Plant Cultivation – Dăbuleni); meadows (e.g. Research and Development Institute for Meadows Brasov); zootechnics (e.g. Research and Development Institute for Sheep and Goat Breeding – Palas); soil science (e.g. National Research Institute for Pedology and Agrochemistry and Research and Development Station for Combating Soil Erosion “Mircea Moțoc”, Perieni); and sericulture (Băneasa Sericulture Research Station).
An interesting example of a specialised technical body within the CADs are the Offices of Pedological and Agrochemical Studies (OSPA).1 These offices are under the scientific co-ordination of the National Research Institute for Pedology and Agrochemistry (ICPA). ICPA and OSPA are expected to contribute to soil conservation at county level through research, with activities ranging from monitoring the quality of agricultural land to studying the economic and ecological effects of land improvement and degradation, as well as possible restoration projects. ICPA, together with OSPA, is also conducting research on the appropriate use of manure and chemical fertilisers to prevent pollution, studies on soil quality classes, and deficiencies in certain nutrients necessary for good plant growth on agricultural land.
Moreover, there are two gene banks in Romania: the Bank of Genetic and Plant Resources of Suceava and the Bank of Plant Genetic Resources - for Vegetables, Flowers, Aromatic and Medicinal Plants of Buzau, each with a research unit hosting germplasm collection.
1. OSPA operates as a state institution of public interest within CADs, but is fully self-financed from extrabudgetary sources.
Source: (MARD, 2022[10]).
Research and development plans for the agricultural, forestry and food sectors are developed top-down by the Academy for Agricultural and Forestry Sciences (AAFS). This public institution also co-ordinates the relevant activities of various institutes and research units. AAFS operates on the basis of its own statute, while co-ordinating with the MARD and co‑operating with the Ministry of Education. Four national institutes, 13 branch institutes and 45 agricultural research and development stations scattered throughout the country are subordinated to the AAFS. Additionally, the AAFS provides scientific co-ordination for three other institutes and private research units.7 The R&D activities of the AAFS units were carried out in 2019 by approximately 800 scientists and financially supported by its own revenues and the state budget though the MARD (EC, 2022[17]).
Public agricultural research is constrained by limited funding, leading to low wages and little attractiveness for researchers and technicians. This underinvestment also hampers the upgrading of research facilities and the efficient implementation of funded projects. Consequently, Romania’s presence in international agricultural research initiatives is limited (Rusu, 2014[15]).
4.3.4. Agricultural education
Agricultural education and training confront challenges in adapting to evolving needs
In Romania, agricultural education encompasses vocational training, agricultural high-school and universities, which are spread throughout the entire country. Many of these educational units feature demonstration farms and plots for hands-on activities and other teaching purposes. As part of the traditional education system, they fall under the coordination of the Ministry of Education, which shapes education programmes for secondary education level, while being administered at the local level.
Initial vocational education and training (VET) is provided by vocational schools, which are a subcategory of secondary education. They can operate as independent units or be affiliated with state or private technological high schools (Zaalmink and de Groot, 2022[20]). The education programmes of these schools adhere to the Training Standards of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF),8 but their offer of vocational training programmes remains relatively limited (Ministry of Education, 2016[21]; Ministry of Education, 2016[22]; MARD, 2023[8]). In the field of agriculture, the offer includes eight professional qualifications at EQF level 3: field crop farmer, beekeeper-sericulturist, mountain farmer, horticulturist, organic worker, agro-tourism worker, zootechnician and agricultural mechanic. Additionally, there are eight qualifications at EQF level 4 covering technician role in general agriculture, agronomy, organic farming, mountain agriculture, horticulture, agro-tourism, veterinary care and animal husbandry (Autoritatea Nationala pentru Calificari, 2024[23]). The number can be potentially expanded according to the labour market needs, based on requests from potential future employers or professional associations. However, no such request has been registered so far.
There are 116 high schools in Romania offering at least partial qualifications in agriculture. Of these, 59 are predominantly agricultural high schools (Ministry of Education and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2023[24]), making them eligible for support from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Moreover, dedicated funds from the Education chapter of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) can be allocated to modernise these high schools; expand their laboratories; procure biological materials, agricultural equipment and machines for agricultural operations; as well as provide specialised training for teachers (Zaalmink and de Groot, 2022[20]; MARD, 2023[8]).
Tertiary education in agriculture or veterinary medicine is provided by four specialised state universities (University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine in Bucharest, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine in Cluj-Napoca, University of Life Sciences “Ion Ionescu de La Brad” in Iasi, and “King Mihai I” University of Life Sciences in Timișoara) and one private university with study programmes in the field of veterinary medicine (“Spiru Haret” University in Bucharest). Additionally, 11 comprehensive higher education institutions (9 public and 4 private)9 have agricultural faculties (Zaalmink and de Groot, 2022[20]; Government of Romania, 2024[25]). Their fields of study encompass agronomy, horticulture, forestry, animal husbandry, veterinary medicine, biotechnologies, food engineering, and engineering and management in agriculture and rural development (Government of Romania, 2024[25]).Agricultural universities are involved in research activities through their research departments (ARACIS, 2017[26]), although their collaboration with other AKIS stakeholders is limited (EC, 2020[14]). According to quality assurance standards, their curricula, besides being theory-oriented, also offer a significant share of practical activities (ARACIS, 2017[26]). To address difficulties in adapting to emerging needs in the sector, Romania aims to pursue dual higher education.
The development of a life-long vocational training system in Romania is in its infancy (EC, 2020[14]). The offer of vocational training programmes – ad-hoc courses and lifelong training – for new farmers is limited (MARD, 2023[8]). The reforms currently being implemented at national level aim to establish the necessary legal conditions for the deployment of a complete learning pathway in dual professional education, from upper secondary through higher technical education. This legal reform is accompanied by investment from Romania’s National Resilience and Recovery Plan in 29 integrated regional campuses for dual education, managed by 29 regional consortia. Four of these consortia have pilot higher VET qualifications in agriculture as one of their fields of study. Each regional consortium will involve all four types of regional partners: accredited state or private higher education institutions, accredited state or private pre-university education entities, administrative territorial authorities, as well as private sector.
4.3.5. Farm advisory services
Extension and advisory services can facilitate the knowledge transfer to farmers and the successful adoption of innovation on farms (OECD, 2020[13]). This role becomes especially vital in countries with a high portion of small-scale farms, such as Romania, where farmers often relay on ad-hoc information sources like the media, the internet or community networks (Zaalmink and de Groot, 2022[20]).
Reforms of the agricultural advisory services in Romania have led to a highly fragmented system…
Over the past three decades, the public advisory system in Romania has experienced frequent and not always consistent changes and reforms, which is reflected in the varying visibility of such services from one period to another, as presented in Box 4.2. This has resulted in a fragmented system with numerous actors offering farmers various, disjointed services. These actors often fail to co‑ordinate their activities and are not always able to respond to farmers’ needs (CRPE, 2023[16]; Rusu, 2014[15]).
The evolution of agricultural advisory services in Romania has been shaped by political, economic, and institutional changes, reflecting broader shifts in agricultural development and rural policy.
Pre-1989 agricultural consultancy primarily focused on technical aspects of production, often neglecting economic and commercial issues. Training in agrarian management was limited and mainly conducted through courses organised by government agencies, i.e. County Agricultural Directorates and the Agronomist’s House. Following the collapse of communism, Romania experienced dramatic changes in agriculture, including land restitution to former owners and the emergence of numerous small farms. This period saw a decline in production means and expertise, leading to reliance on traditional farming methods and informal networks for advice and support such as friends and neighbours.
The public agricultural advisory services were established in 1998 with the creation of the National Agency of Agricultural Consultancy (NAAC) at the national level, along with County Agricultural Consultancy Offices (CACO) and Local Agricultural Consultancy Centers (LACC) at the county and local level. This centralised publicly-funded system under the responsibility of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) was designed to support agricultural reform and promote modern farming practices through advisory, extension, and vocational training activities. Three years later, the agricultural consultancy system was decentralised, with local offices coming under local administration control while remaining under the technical and methodological co-ordination of NAAC. During this period, the quality of advisory services became questionable due to staff diversion to other activities. In 2005, on the eve of Romania’s accession to the European Union, the agricultural consultancy services were centralised again under NAAC and MARD. NAAC broadened its objectives, emphasising farmer training, sharing information on EU funding sources and requirements, and assisting farmers with agricultural business planning.
In subsequent years, consultancy services in Romania underwent further transformations. In 2009, County Agricultural Chambers (CACs) replaced CACOs and became subordinated to county councils, separating from NAAC, which retained only a technical consultancy role. Emphasis was placed on promoting rural development programmes under the Common Agricultural Policy, and increasing the absorption rate of European and governmental funding. In 2010, amid financial crisis, NAAC was dissolved, and its functions were transferred to newly established MARD’s Consultancy, Extension, and Vocational Training Department. In 2016, Country Agricultural Directorates (CADs) took over responsibilities as well as staff and assets from CACs. During this time, Romania witnessed a return to a situation resembling “invisible” agricultural consultancy, marked by challenges related to funding, delays, and disruptions in existing advisory structures.
Source: (Rusu, 2014[15]) (CRPE, 2023[16]).
…leading to an advisory system which does not fully respond to the diverse needs of farmers
Currently, the agricultural advisory system in Romania leans heavily towards public services, particularly due to the prevalence of small- and medium- sized farms. As discussed in Chapter 2, most of Romanian farms (around 90%) are under 5 ha, with many of them predominantly focused on subsistence agriculture, highlighting a reliance on farming for basic needs within the local community. While larger, commercial farms typically opt for fee-based personalised services from private providers or information gathered at the agricultural fairs, smaller farms rely on less costly options, i.e. public services or alternative sources of information, including family, neighbours, agricultural television programmes or the Internet. The differing needs for advice between these groups are notable (CRPE, 2023[16]; Toma et al., 2019[27]; MARD, 2023[8]).
The general structure of the public agricultural advisory system is currently organised on two territorial levels. The MARD develops the strategic direction, while advisory services are provided by the county and local structures, i.e. the County Agricultural Directorates (CADs), and local agricultural consultancy centres (CRPE, 2023[16]). The public farm advisory system is tasked with fulfilling a diverse set of objectives and addressing needs not covered by the private sector. On one hand, public counselling and consulting services aim to offer technical assistance to farmers and rural communities in areas such as agronomy, animal husbandry, or access to new technologies. On the other hand, public consultants are expected to provide guidance on development of business plans and facilitate access to European funds. Additionally, they may provide professional training courses, which are essential to enhancing competences within the sector (CRPE, 2023[16]; EC, 2020[14]; Rusu, 2014[15]). However, due to resource constraints, their actual focus remains on assisting farmers for a fee in accessing funding through RDP measures or providing free advice on how to comply with EU agri-environmental requirements and standards, mainly targeting small and medium-sized farmers. This leaves the remaining needs of farmers and the active promotion of innovation in agriculture mostly unaddressed (Toma et al., 2019[27]).
Other institutions subordinated to the MARD may also provide specific advisory services, alongside their primary activities. For instance, the Agency for Payments and Intervention in Agriculture (APIA) and the Agency for Financing Rural Investments (AFIR) (see Box 2.2 in Chapter 2) offer consultancy and assistance services for farmers regarding the available financing schemes and the necessary procedures for accessing them. For this purpose, APIA, together with CADs, holds annual sessions to promote new RDP measures, and occasional sessions to enhance farmers’ understanding of Agri-Environmental Measures and their relevant requirements. The National Agency for Land Improvement (NALI), a government institution responsible for the coordination and implementation of irrigation and land improvement policy in Romania, provides farmers with guidance on irrigation systems and water resource management. Additionally, some agricultural research institutions can provide consulting services alongside their primary activities.
In addition to the public advisory services, Romania also features private agricultural consultancy entities such as consultancy firms, input traders and suppliers, as well as farmers’ organisations and NGOs. Private consultants primarily specialise in drawing up financial applications for EU funding and offering support across large-scale projects for a fee (EC, 2020[14]; Rusu, 2014[15]). Input suppliers frequently integrate advice within their specialised field with the sale of their products, such as animal feed, seed, fertilisers or pesticides, incorporating consultation fees into the produce prices (Rusu, 2014[15]). Other private companies like machinery and equipment sellers and resellers play an important role in raising farmers’ awareness of “new” technologies and encouraging their adoption. However, they lean towards commercial farmers who are better able to afford their products and services (Toma et al., 2019[27]). The producers’ organisations and the farmers’ associations strive to improve their members’ access to production, market and managerial knowledge (Rusu, 2014[15]), but their strategy is not always clearly defined, discouraging farmers from participating. NGOs can contribute to sustainable productivity growth in the sector. For example, in Brasov region, ADEPT organises farmer meetings and seminars that showcase combined economic and social benefits with biodiversity conservation efforts. Nevertheless, the frequency of training sessions highly depends on the availability of financial resources (Toma et al., 2019[27]).
Farm advisory services are undersized and uptake of related CAP measures is low
Challenges persist within Romania’s advisory services due to constrained funding impeding their availability and effectiveness (Rusu, 2014[15]; MARD, 2023[8]). Approximately 500 public consultants operate in Romania, of which around 200 at the county level and the rest at local level. This number is considered highly insufficient, as each agricultural consultant serves on average over 4 000 farmers (including the subsistence farmers), well above the recommended ratio of 1 to 65 (maximum 100) farmers (CRPE, 2023[16]). Additionally, non-competitive wages pose challenges in attracting and retaining qualified staff, which is essential for effectively disseminating knowledge about novel technologies and practices to farmers. Insufficient financial resources for material provisions and consultant mobility also create a risk of isolating advisors from valuable knowledge sources and clients, i.e. farmers, impacting the quality of advisory services (Rusu, 2014[15]).
This coincides with underutilised CAP funding that could bolster farm advisory services, as discussed further in Section 4.4.1. Access to farm advisory services and training is fragmented and participation rates remain low (EC, 2020[14]). During the 2014-20 programming period, around 0.3% of Romanian farmers (10 032 people) benefited from advisory services under Measure 2 (M2) “Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services” of the CAP. The measure was primarily utilised to establish associative forms aimed at providing advice in the areas of improving competitiveness, farm restructuring and modernisation. However, other purposes within M2 were underutilised due to complex procurement procedures and insufficient linkage with activities of the final beneficiaries, i.e. farmers, hampering broader use of farm advisory services (MARD, 2023[8]).
4.3.6. Funding of the AKIS
The Romanian government sets relevant AKIS strategies, policies and institutional frameworks, implements and monitors innovation programmes, as well as attempts to foster an enabling environment. National public authorities also significantly contribute to financing agricultural R&D and education, and provide innovation support to businesses. They strongly leverage European funds in addition to their own resources to bolster these efforts.
EU instruments constitute the financial foundation for Romania’s AKIS
Fostering knowledge and innovation in the Romanian agricultural sector is financed from both the EU and national budgets through various instruments, as illustrated in Figure 4.2. While some of these funds are directly linked to agriculture and to agricultural research, development and innovation (R&D&I), the majority are not sector-specific. The main EU funding sources for agricultural innovation include Horizon Europe (2021-27), the successor of Horizon 2020 (2014-20), and the European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Other instruments such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Digital Europe Programme, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF Digital), the Programme for Environment and Climate (LIFE), InvestEU, Just Transition Fund or European Social Fund can also contribute to modernising the agricultural sector, albeit less directly. Therefore, they are discussed here to a much lesser extent (OECD, 2023[9]). Relevant national instruments include the National Research, Development and Innovation Plan 2022-2027 (PNCDI IV), as well as a sectoral plan, Agriculture and Rural Development (ADER).
Note: This is a stylised, not fully comprehensive diagram illustrating the flows and magnitude of funds and institutional arrangements. The figures on funding might correspond to different periods and are only indicative. The data for the EAFRD and EAGF reflect only EU contributions, while those for the RRF and ERDF include the corresponding national contributions, the Horizon refers to net EU contributions. * Total updated planned budget for measures 01, 02 and 16 under the Rural Development Programme (RDP) for 2014-22, and interventions DR-34, DR-37, DR-38 under the 2023-27 CAP Strategic Plan. Abbreviations: CAP: Common Agricultural Policy, CEF: Connecting Europe Facility, EAFRD: European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, EAGF: European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, EIP-AGRI: European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability, ERDF: European Regional Development Fund, LIFE: Programme for Environment and Climate, NF: national funds, SMEs: small and medium-sized enterprises, RRF: Recovery and Resilience Facility, VET: vocational education and training.
Source: Authors, based on official sources, information from meetings with public authorities, and secondary sources, including: EC (2024[28]; 2023[29]; 2024[30]; 2024[31]), EP (2023[32]; 2024[33]), Government of Romania (2024[34]), Ministry of European Investment and Projects (2024[35]).
The scale of the R&D&I investments seems inadequate compared to the size and needs of the agricultural sector
The European Union’s Research and Innovation Framework Programme for 2014-20, Horizon 2020, saw Romania’s participation in projects falling below expectations. Throughout the duration of Horizon 2020, Romanian entities received EUR 301.2 million, accounting for only 0.44% of Horizon 2020 funding and ranking Romania 20th out of the then 28 EU Member States. Out of this funding, EUR 39.63 million was channelled through the societal challenge “Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy”. The situation becomes even more apparent when taking into account the size of the country, with Romania ranking last among EU countries in terms of total Horizon 2020 funding per inhabitant. This contrasts strongly with the high relative weight of the agricultural sector in Romania in economic, social and environmental terms (as presented in Chapter 2), as well as the pressing need for modernising and transforming the sector. Moreover, the distribution of Horizon 2020 funding within Romania was highly skewed, with the Bucuresti – Ilfov region receiving two-thirds of the total funding, highlighting the concentration of resources, such as researchers and infrastructure, around the capital (EC, 2024[28]; EC, 2024[36]).
The distribution of funding from Horizon 2020 across European regions also exhibits notable disparities. Despite efforts to strengthen research in formerly communist eastern Europe, a gap persists between these countries and western Europe. Poland, the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria and Romania were among the least successful participants in Horizon 2020, collectively receiving just over EUR 1 billion out of approximately EUR 60 billion (Schiermeier, 2020[37]). Common factors contributing to low success rates of these countries in securing Horizon 2020 funding include insufficient national funding, re-prioritisation processes, a shortage of skilled researchers, and unforeseen obstacles hindering the efficient use of allocated resources. The relatively low level of national research funding in eastern European countries could be one of the primary explanations for their limited success in obtaining Horizon funding (Schiermeier, 2020[37]; EC, 2022[38]).
Under Horizon Europe (2021-27), Romania has been awarded a total funding of EUR 206.5 million, positioning it 18th out of 27 EU Members States in terms of budget share. Most of the funding for the agro-food sector is provided under Cluster 6 “Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment”, whose budget obtained by Romania amounts to EUR 35.1 million. This cluster was designed among others to foster knowledge, build capacity and develop novel solutions to promote sustainable land use and a more sustainable, resilient and inclusive agricultural sector (EC, 2024[28]).
CAP measures supporting co-operation and knowledge transfer deserve higher priority
The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), one of two funds under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (Box 2.1), serves as another crucial avenue for financing agricultural R&D&I activities. Alongside national co-financing, the EAFRD provides financial resources for the implementation of Member States’ Rural Development Programmes (RDPs), which include measures dedicated to knowledge transfer, advice and innovation through co-operation (see Section 4.4.1). Romania’s RDP 2014-22 allocated EUR 91 million to three knowledge and innovation-related measures (Measures 1, 2 and 16),10 while the equivalent measures under the 2023-27 CSP (Interventions: DR-34, DR-37, DR-38) will only receive EUR 30 million. Certain other CAP instruments may contribute to fostering knowledge and innovation. For example, the requirement of a minimum qualification level or training to access certain CAP aids, such as farm modernisation investment or young farmer support, may incentivise farmers to upgrade their skills. Furthermore, knowledge transfer, as well as research and innovation activities, can also receive support through “Sectorial interventions” under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) (OECD, 2023[9]; OECD, 2023[39]).
Part of the rural development funding of the CAP and Horizon Europe funding are channelled into the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI). This flagship policy tool of the European Commission aims to strengthen the AKIS and bridge the gap between research and farming in practice through various multi-actor innovation projects (EC, 2012[40]). These projects take two forms: operational groups’ innovation projects, supported under the RDPs, which primarily function within a country or a region (Section 4.4.2); and multi-actor research projects and thematic networks, funded by the Horizon programme, which operate on a transnational level (OECD, 2023[9]).
Additional EU instruments such as the Recovery and Resilience Facility can contribute to agricultural innovation, particularly through investments in education and digitalisation
The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) is a temporary instrument of the European Union, in force since 2021, designed to help Member States to strengthen their economies recovering from the COVID‑19 crisis. It provides performance-based support based on their submitted National Recovery and Resilience Plans (NRRPs). Romania’s NRRP has a budget of EUR 28.5 billion, equivalent to13% of Romania’s 2019 GDP, in the form of grants and loans (see Chapter 2). The NRRP encompasses reforms and investments aimed at bolstering sustainable socio-economic growth, facilitating the country’s green and digital transition, as well as enhancing education (EP, 2023[32]; EP, 2024[33]; EC, 2024[30]).
Romania’s NRRP contributes to fostering agricultural innovation, particularly through its Component 15 “Education”. This component earmarks funds, among others, for transforming agricultural high schools into professionalisation centres (EUR 43.6 million) and acquiring equipment for vocational education and training (EUR 107.3 million), including agricultural high schools. These funds will enable the renovation and modernisation of workshops, research and IT laboratories. Schools will be able to purchase biological material, agricultural equipment and machines, as well as IT aids and equipment. Furthermore, teachers will receive training based on agriculture-related curricula. Thus, these funds should help equip schools to deliver higher quality education (EC, 2021[41]; Government of Romania, 2024[34]).
Other components of Romania’s NRRP outline reforms and provide support that may indirectly benefit innovation in the agricultural sector. For instance, Component 9 “Business support, research, development and innovation” aims to boost overall research and development in Romania by encouraging the creation of public-private partnerships investing in R&D&I, supporting the integration of Romanian R&D&I organisations into the European Research Area, or ensuring harmonised design and implementation of R&D&I policies across ministries and agencies. Furthermore, it seeks to address the institutional fragmentation by introducing a regular evaluation mechanism and encouraging research institutions to merge. In turn, reforms and investments under Component 7 “Digital transformation” are to contribute to establishing a coherent and integrated digital infrastructure for public administration and enabling lifelong digital education for citizens (Council of the European Union, 2021[42]; EC, 2021[41]).
Other European funds may also play significant roles in fostering enabling environment for agricultural innovation and knowledge exchange through digitalisation. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) contributes to financing the Smart Growth, Digitalization and Financial Instruments programme (POCIDIF) and Regional Operational Programmes, thereby supporting smart specialisation and the development of digital technologies at national and local levels respectively. The Digital Europe Programme provides strategic funding to a broad portfolio of digital technology projects, and finances Innovation Hubs. Furthermore, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF Digital) supports and channels both public and private investment in digital connectivity infrastructure (EC, 2023[43]).
National instruments play a secondary role in supporting agricultural research, development, and innovation
In parallel, the National Research, Development and Innovation Plan 2022-2027 (PNCDI IV) serves as the primary instrument for implementing Romania’s National Strategy for Research, Innovation and Smart Specialisation (SNCISI, Section 4.2.2), which is not agriculture-specific. This plan, endowed with a budget of RON 60 billion (approx. EUR 12 billion), is structured around ten R&D&I programmes aimed at strengthening Romania’s research standing on the international stage and addressing societal challenges outlined in the Strategic Research Agenda (Ministry of European Investments and Projects, 2024[44]).
Within the agricultural domain, the Agriculture and Rural Development (ADER) plans are managed by MARD since 2011. With a budget of RON 195 million (approx. EUR 39 million) for the period 2023-26 and RON 133 million (approx. EUR 27 million) for 2019-22, ADER finances research themes that contribute to building a smart, resilient and diversified agricultural sector and ensuring food security. The range of research areas includes, among others: adaptation to the effects of climate change, efficient management of natural resources and inputs, biodiversity conservation, use of environmentally friendly practices, implementation of innovative technologies and processes, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural and forestry activities, ensuring healthy agri-food products, bioeconomy, circular economy, and digitisation (MARD, 2019[45]; MARD, 2023[46]; Government of Romania, 2022[47]).
4.4.1. Public and private investments in R&D
Both private and public resources invested in R&D serve as indicators of a country’s efforts to innovate. Romania set the target for total gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD, which covers public and private expenditure on R&D carried out by all residents in a country) at the level of 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) for the whole innovation system by 2020 (Rakic, 2021[48]). However, the target was not achieved, and overall R&D intensity11 stagnated at around 0.5% over the last decade, significantly below the EU27 average (2.2% in 2021; see section below, Table 4.1).
Unlike in other sectors, governmental expenditures primarily drive agricultural R&D
Romania allocates one of the lowest research budgets in the European Union for agricultural research, at just EUR 1.1 per capita, compared to EUR 6.4 in the EU27 (EC, 2020[14]). According to the National Institute for Statistics (2023[49]), Romania’s overall R&D budget has decreased by 35% over the last decade. The agricultural R&D budget activities has also experienced a decline, albeit to a lesser extent (EC, 2020[14]). Consequently, inadequate funding for the agricultural research and innovation system constrains Romania’s capacity to undertake projects and achieve results (MARD, 2023[8]).
Public investments play a crucial role in financing agricultural research and innovation, as they not only directly provide means for relevant activities but also attempt to spur private investments (Heisey and Fuglie, 2018[50]). In 2021, the government of Romania allocated a total of EUR 22 million (in current prices) to agricultural R&D activities carried out in government establishments, higher education, business enterprises, private non-profit organisations, as well as abroad. This marked a significant decline from much higher levels observed a decade earlier. Consequently, the share of agriculture in government budget allocations fell from 17% in 2010 to shares fluctuating around 5% between 2013 and 2021 (Figure 4.3), although it remained above the EU27 average of 3% (OECD, 2023[9]).
Note: 1.Government budget allocation for research and development (GBARD) is a funder-based approach for reporting R&D, which involves identifying all the budget items that may support R&D activities and measuring or estimating their R&D content. It allows linking these budget lines to policy considerations through classification by socio-economic objective. However, it only provides a partial indicator of investment in public agricultural research, since it refers to research funding instruments dedicated specifically to agriculture.
1. Because of changes in methodology, data from 2022 onward have not been included.
2. The purchasing power standard, abbreviated as PPS, is an artificial currency unit. It is the technical term used by Eurostat for the common currency in which national accounts aggregates are expressed when adjusted for price level differences using PPPs. Thus, PPPs can be interpreted as the exchange rate of the PPS against the euro.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on Eurostat/OECD (2023).
In terms of performance, the government sector also pays a leading role for agricultural R&D. While for overall R&D activities the private sector has largely taken the leading role previously played by the government, in agriculture, the government is still the main actor in performance, accounting for four-fifths of the expenditure in 2021. The private sector increased its participation in agricultural R&D activities from 4.4% to 7.3% between 2011 and 2021, while the higher education sector saw a decrease from 23.0% to 12.2% in the same years (Figure 4.4).
Source: Eurostat, GERD by sector of performance and fields of R&D [RD_E_GERDSC].
Agricultural R&D intensities signal sever underfinancing
Public expenditure on R&D in Romania has been on the decline in recent years, with the overall R&D intensity, defined as the R&D investment relative to GDP, standing at just 0.47% in 2021, a mere quarter of the EU average, indicating profound underfunding (EC, 2023[51]). For the agriculture sector, the public gross domestic R&D expenditure, encompassing government and higher education, amounted to only 0.41% of the sector’s value added in 2021, marking the lowest among OECD counties with available data. Moreover, the intensity of Romanian agricultural R&D, as measured by government budget allocation (GBARD) relative to the size of the sector, has been consistently low and decreasing over time, dropping from 0.54% in 2008 to 0.19% in 2021 (Table 4.1).
Investment from all sources for private R&D (BERD) as a percentage of GDP rose from 0.17% in 2008 to 0.29% in 2021. Conversely, investments from all sources in business R&D as a percentage of the sector’s value added were consistently very low in the agricultural (0.03%) and food and beverages (0.02%) sectors. This participation was well below that of most EU Member States and other OECD countries, contradicting global trends where the private sector has been increasing its involvement in agricultural R&D (Fuglie, 2016[52]; Ruane and Ramasamy, 2023[53]).
Note: 2011, and 2021,2022, or the nearest available year.
1. Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) is defined as the total expenditure (current and capital) on R&D carried out by all resident companies, research institutes, university, and government laboratories, etc., in a country. It includes R&D funded from abroad but excludes domestic funds for R&D performed outside the domestic economy.
2. Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) for agricultural and veterinary.
3. Government budget allocation for R&D (GBARD) is a funder-based approach for reporting R&D, which involves identifying all the budget items that may support R&D activities and measuring or estimating their R&D content. It enables linking these budget lines to policy considerations through classification by socioeconomic objectives.
4. Government budget allocation for R&D (GBARD) on Agriculture covers all R&D aimed at the promotion of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and foodstuff production, or furthering knowledge on chemical fertilisers, biocides, biological pest control and the mechanisation of agriculture, as well as concerning the impact of agricultural and forestry activities on the environment. This also covers R&D aimed at improving food productivity and technology. It does not include R&D on the reduction of pollution; on the development of rural areas; on the construction and planning of buildings; on the improvement of rural rest and recreation amenities and agricultural water supply; or on energy measures.
5. Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) is the measure of intramural R&D expenditures within the business enterprise sector (regardless the sources of R&D funds).
6. Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) on Agriculture, forestry and fishing.
7. Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) on Manufacture of food products, beverages and tobacco products.
8. The European Union (27 countries) aggregate was estimated for the BERD, sectors Agriculture, and Food and beverage.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on OECD (2023), Research and Development Statistics (database), [Gross domestic expenditure on R&D by sector of performance and field of R&D (FORD); Government budget allocations for R&D; Business enterprise R-D expenditure by industry (ISIC 4)]; STI Main Science and Technology Indicators (database), [BERD as a percentage of GDP]; and National Accounts (database), [Gross domestic product (GDP) - Gross value added at basic prices by activity, ISIC rev4; Value added and its components by activity, ISIC rev4], https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed August 2023); Eurostat (2023), BERD by NACE Rev. 2 activity (database), [RD_E_BERDINDR2], GBARD by socioeconomic objectives (NABS 2007) (database), [GBA_NABSFIN07], GDP and main components (database) [NAMA_10_GDP], National accounts aggregates by industry (up to NACE A*64) (database) [NAMA_10_A64], http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed August 2023).
The low levels of uptake of CAP innovation measures shows a limited capacity of the sector to absorb innovation funding
Under the CAP 2014-22, knowledge and innovation were mainly supported through three Rural Development (RD) measures: knowledge transfer (M1), advice (M2) and co-operation (M16). Unlike for most other RD measures, farmers were not the direct beneficiaries of these measures. For example, M1 aimed at service providers such as those offering formal training outside regular education programmes, conducting demonstration activities, organising information campaigns, or facilitating exchanges and visits. M2 primarily targeted entities providing advice to farmers and training to advisors. In contrast, M16 was dedicated to so-called “co-operation groups” encompassing networks, clusters and EIP Operational Groups (see Section 4.4.2).12
As of 2023, data reveals that the share of expenditure planned on M1, M2 and M16 in the entire RDP was the lowest in the European Union: 0.7% compared to 2.6% for the EU27. Furthermore, part of the budget initially allocated for these measures was diverted towards other RDP activities that met with greater interest from beneficiaries, such as supporting areas with natural constraints (M13), or helped to meet urgent needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemics (M21) (EC, 2023[29]).
Note: The spending rate refers to the ration of the total amount spent to the initially planned budget. Knowledge and innovation-related measures encompass knowledge transfer (M1), advice (M2) and co-operation (M16). The funding shown for M16 also includes sub-measures that do not target innovation or knowledge exchange. The values include both EU and national components. The size of the bubble indicates the share of knowledge and innovation-related measures in the Rural Development Programme (RDP) eligible spending. The position of each bubble corresponds to the relation between the spending rates on innovation-related measures (y-axis) and on overall Rural Development measures (x-axis).
Source: Authors’ calculations based on EC (2023[29]), ESIF 2014-2020 Finance Implementation Details (database).
Romania planned a very small amount of financial resources to knowledge and innovation-related measures and did not take full advantage of the available funding. The spending rate on measures supporting innovation and knowledge exchange, calculated as the ratio of the total amount spent on projects implemented to the amount planned (an initial budget allocation), was among the lowest in the European Union. Only Greece, Malta and Slovakia recorded lower spending rates for these measures (Figure 4.5). In contrast, Romania had a higher spending rate for the entire RDP (83%), which was close to the EU average of 81%. This may suggest a lack of absorptive capacity among potential beneficiaries of innovation and knowledge-related measures, highlighting the need to strengthen the presence of innovation brokers, that are the target of these measures, and build capacity to design and implement complex projects.
Analysing individual measures, the resources intended for knowledge (M1) and advice (M2) were notably low – EUR 6 million and EUR 4 million, respectively (Figure 4.6, panel A) – a stark contrast with the significant needs of the agricultural sector in terms of upskilling both farmers and agricultural advisors (Sections 4.4.5 and 4.3.5). For M16, the budget planned was over EUR 81 million, but the amount spent was only EUR 11 million (Figure 4.6, panel A). Such a low level of uptake of the co-operation measure may indicate either the lack of potential beneficiaries or their inability to access available funds. However, considering that the co‑operation measure was a novelty under the CAP 2014-22, it could be expected that, as potential beneficiaries and implementing agencies become more familiar with this measure, its implementation should become easier and uptake higher in the future.
The implementation of the innovation and knowledge-related measures proceeded slowly, with the first expenditure occurring three years after the start of the programming period. The uptake of advice-related measure was particularly delayed, with the first payments reaching beneficiaries only in 2019 (Figure 4.6, panel B). Due to greater political attention to co-operation, the uptake of M16 has accelerated in recent years. Initial difficulties in implementing M1, M2 and M16 may have arisen due to various factors, including: a delayed call calendar; changes of implementation mechanisms; administrative burdens; stringent technical and financial conditions imposed on trainers and advisors; time needed to improve the clarity of the guidelines; and weak connection to other CAP measures (MARD, 2019[54]) (EC, 2020[14]).
Note: The funding shown for measure 16 also includes sub-measures that do not target innovation or knowledge exchange. National and regional programmes report financial data to the Commission on their progress as follows: “Planned”: Total budget of the programme; “Decided”: Financial resources allocated to selected projects (project pipeline); “Spent”: Expenditure reported by the selected projects. The financial data reporting is expressed in total costs including both EU and national components.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on EC (2023[29]).
4.4.2. International co-operation in agricultural R&D and partnerships for agricultural innovation
Romania strives to foster agricultural innovation and knowledge transfers through both international and domestic partnerships. Like other European countries, it strongly leverages EU’s programmes, notably the Research and Innovation Framework Programme “Horizon” (Section 4.3.6). Romania’s involvement encompasses joint research projects, knowledge exchange initiatives, and capacity-building programmes.
The participation of Romanian researchers in international agricultural R&D projects is limited
Romanian research units and universities engage in R&D projects with EU Member States as well as with selected non-EU countries. Co-operation primarily occurs within the European Research Area facilitated by initiatives under Horizon Europe and its predecessor, Horizon 2020. Additionally, Romania participates in various European and international R&D and smart specialisation co-operation frameworks, as well as joint bilateral and multilateral thematic calls. For example, Romania participates in the Central-Eastern European Initiative for Knowledge-based Agriculture, Aquaculture and Forestry in the Bioeconomy (BIOEAST).
Under Horizon 2020, Romania’s involvement in the projects addressing “food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy” was somewhat limited, with only 127 proposals, corresponding to 1.14% of all applications within this societal challenge (EC, 2024[28]). However, the success rate of Romanian applications13 (96.9%) shows the high capacity of a limited numbers of universities and research institutions to obtain EU funding.
Romania intends to bolster its participation in the intra- and extra- European R&D&I collaboration. With this objective in mind, the National Strategy for Research, Innovation and Smart Specialisation (SNCISI, Section 4.2.1) advocates for enhancing the competitiveness of the system by fostering integration within the European scientific community, attracting resources from abroad (human, financial, know-how), as well as bolstering Romania’s contribution to addressing global challenges through collaboration at both European and international levels. The priorities outlined in the SNCISI are implemented through the National Research, Development and Innovation Plan (Section 4.3.6), with agriculture-related themes embedded in several key research areas (MARD, 2023[8]).
The potential of using EIP-AGRI Operational Groups to foster collaboration for sustainable agricultural innovation remains underused
The EU’s European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI) (see also Section 4.3.6) is a key tool for Romania to foster collaboration among AKIS actors. The so-called Operational Groups (OGs) apply the principles of the interactive innovation model, and bring together farmers and researchers, as well as innovation brokers and advisors to tackle practical problems or explore emerging opportunities that may lead to innovative solutions and increased innovation in the agricultural sector (OECD, 2023[9]).
The set-up of the EIP-AGRI Operational Groups in Romania is in its early stage and progresses slowly. The first call for projects for OGs were launched only in 2018/19. By September 2023, 26 OG projects, with a total value of EUR 9.5 million, qualified for financing under sub-measure 16.1 (support for the establishment of OGs and project implementation) of the CAP 2014-22 (MARD, 2023[8]). This represented just 1% of all OGs in the European Union that reported on their activities or completed their projects (EC, 2023[55]). This may suggest challenges with the initial implementation of the sub-measure in question as well as a potential lack of demand among beneficiaries or high administrative burden.
Most of the OG projects in Romania focus on sustainable farming practices and agricultural production systems, in line with the priorities of the European Union. These initiatives include: developing a “precision agriculture” solution for organic fruit growing; developing an integrated pest management (IPM) using low-chemical solutions for orchards and fruit production; developing innovative tools for prevention and control of pests in beekeeping (discussed in more detail in Section 4.5.2) (EC, 2023[55]; MARD, 2023[8]).
4.4.3. Digitisation, connectivity, deployment and use of digital technologies
Romania’s digitalisation, both in the general economy and agriculture, lag behind other EU Member States, as evidenced by the fewest public Internet services and the lowest adoption rate, i.e. only 17% of Romanian Internet users utilise e-government services, compared to 65% for the EU average (EC, 2020[14]; EC, 2022[56]). While 50% of farmers in Romania use GPS navigation and yield measurement systems, only 10% use precision farming equipment (EC, 2020[14]). Moreover, the disparities in technological endowment and digitalisation between large and small/medium-sized farms are exacerbating (MARD, 2023[8]).
In the 2022 Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), Romania ranked last among EU Member States. Connectivity is the area where the country preforms best, with some indicators, such as fixed-line connectivity, surpassing the EU27 average. However, in terms of human capital, integration of digital technology and digital public services, Romania lags behind its EU counterparts. Furthermore, the overall gap in DESI has been widening, as Romania’s relative annual growth was weaker than of its peers (EC, 2022[56]).
Despite notable progress in connectivity, low digital literacy in Romania hinders the adoption of agricultural innovation
The National Strategy for Digital Agenda (NSDAR) for Romania 2020, building on the Digital Agenda for Europe, delineates Romania’s broadband strategy and sets targets, including achieving at least 80% of coverage with broadband communication networks of over 30 Mbps (Government of Romania, 2015[57]). The Romanian Digital Decade Roadmap, currently awaiting approval by the Romanian Government, will further redefine the national trajectory and could become an important tool to monitor Romania’s digital progress (EC, 2023[58]). Additionally, as discussed, the Romania’s Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) outlines reforms and investments aimed at ensuring high-speed Internet access in unserved areas unlikely to develop such infrastructure independently (Council of the European Union, 2021[42]). The strategic RO-NET project is a notable example of investment in connectivity. Leveraging EU Structural Funds, Romania invested EUR 85 million in the construction of high-standard ICT infrastructures in unserved rural areas (EC, 2023[58]).
Policy efforts have yielded significant results, with Romania making notable strides in narrowing the broadband access gap in rural areas. In 2021, 82% of rural households in Romania had access to broadband Internet at home, compared to 88% for all households. This represents a substantial leap from just 13% of with Internet access in 2010 (Figure 4.7, panel A), with continued rapid progress. These efforts significantly closed the disparity between rural and urban areas, bringing Romania closer to the EU27 and OECD averages of 86% and 89%, respectively (OECD, 2023[59]).
The coverage of Next Generation Agenda (NGA), encompassing fixed-line broadband access technologies capable of achieving download speeds meeting the Digital Agenda objective of at least 30 Mbps coverage like VDSL, DOCSIS 3.0 and FTTP, has also seen considerable improvements in Romania. In 2021, NGA coverage in rural areas reached 85% surpassing the EU average of 68% (Figure 4.7, panel B). These developments not only underscore Romania’s commitment to enhancing connectivity and reducing the digital divide across the country but also represent a step forward in advancing the digitalisation of Romanian agriculture.
As share of all households
Note: Next Generation Access (NGA) coverage includes fixed-line broadband access technologies capable of achieving download speeds meeting the Digital Agenda objective of at least 30 Mbps coverage, such as combination of VDSL, DOCSIS 3.0, and FTTP.
Source: Panel A: OECD (2023), Information and Communication Technology database (ICT Access and Usage by Households and Individuals table), http://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed July 2023); Panel B: Broadband Coverage in Europe 2021, Mapping progress towards the coverage objectives of the digital agenda.
The Romanian farming sector is predominantly composed of small-scale farms which are less inclined to innovate and adopt scale-dependent innovation, such as GPS equipped precision agriculture technologies that optimise input use. This reluctance among small farm-holders may stem from factors such as comparatively more limited financial resources and access to know-how.
Despite progress in connectivity and the existence of funds that potentially could drive modernisation of the agricultural sector, Romania faces challenges in human capital development, hindering the advancement and uptake of innovations. With only 28% of residents possessing basic digital skills in 2021, well below the EU average of 54%, and a significant portion having never used the Internet (one in five), the country grapples with low rates of digital literacy (EC, 2020[14]; EC, 2022[56]). Furthermore, rural-urban disparities persist, with only 52% of rural households owning computers compared to 76% in urban areas (EC, 2020[14]). Recently, several important measures have been implemented to develop digital skills, including reforms and investments outlined in Romania’s NRRP (Section 4.3.6). However, it is still too early to observe their impacts and the low level of digitalisation continues to pose a significant hurdle.
Romania is actively pursuing initiatives to digitalise its administration and improve the availability and accessibility of policy relevant data
Romania is pursuing government digitalisation by modernising institutional operations and giving more attention to data. The country is also engaging in EU initiatives focused on adopting new technologies for CAP administrations (EC, 2020[14]). Embracing satellite-based means to monitor CAP implementation, Romania is to roll out the “area monitoring system” for every parcel applying for support starting from the 2023 claim year.
Moreover, a new on-line module was launched enabling potential beneficiaries to submit application for financing under the NRDP (MARD, 2023[8]). The Agency for Payments and Intervention in Agriculture (APIA), discussed in Chapter 2, gathers farm-level yearly data via subsidy applications. Collaborating with public and private entities on data sharing, APIA ensures accurate implementation of payment measures and schemes. These data exchange practices adhere to co-operation agreements and protocols, which are guided by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (MARD, 2023[8]).14
While Romania lacks a comprehensive framework governing data use, it has initiated several relevant efforts. These include co-operation agreements between institutions for data sharing, notably involving the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in the field of agricultural data. Legislation like Law no. 226/2009 defines the organisation and functioning of official statistics. An official governmental portal houses open datasets generated by public administration authorities and institutions (MARD, 2023[8]). Moreover, the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitalisation is currently developing a platform to monitor implementation of the “National Strategy for Research, Innovation and Smart Specialisation 2022–2027” (see Section 4.2.2). This platform aims to replace existing systems,15 channelling data on public funding for R&D&I from various national sources, and provides a link to the European Commission’s e-Corda platform, hence allowing for future statistical comparisons. Some features of the platform will be accessible to the general public (MARD, 2023[8]).
4.4.4. Protection of intellectual property rights
Romania provides a relatively low, though increasing, level of IPR protection compared to OECD countries
Intellectual property rights (IPRs) in Romania are governed by national and international legislation. While the European Union provides a common framework and supranational institutions governing the protection of IPRs, each EU Member States, including Romania, has its own national intellectual property protection system. Romania has been a member of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) since 2003. According to the intellectual patent protection index of the World Economic Forum, Romania provides a relatively low but increasing level of IPRs protection compared to other EU Members and OECD countries (Figure 4.8), indicating ongoing efforts to enhance IPR protection in the country. Notably, Romania experienced the highest increase in the index score among OECD countries between 2009 and 2019, surpassing some EU peers such as Hungary, Lithuania and Italy. However, Romania’s index score (4.7) in 2019 remained lower than the OECD and EU averages.
Scale from lowest (1) to highest (7) protection
Note: OECD and EU27 are the simple average of member countries’ indices.
Source: WEF (2019[60]).
Legal intellectual property protection for plant varieties has increased, bringing Romania up to the protection level of peer EU countries
EU Member States have national IPRs systems protecting their plant varieties and agricultural-related innovations. These nationally defined systems adhere to common standards outlined by international conventions, such as the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Moreover, the entry into force of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) TRIPS agreement has made IPRs systems worldwide more homogeneous and stronger (Figure 4.9).16
Romania has demonstrated a commitment to enhancing legal IP protection for plant varieties. The country adhered to the UPOV convention in 2001 and became a member of the latest UPOV convention of 1991 in the same year. Over the years, Romania made substantial strides in increasing its level of IP protection for plant varieties, including giving the State Institute for Variety Testing and Registration a mandate to grant legal protection to new plant varieties (Box 4.3). This advancement is reflected by the rise of the index of legal protection for plant varieties from 0.2 to 4.2 between 1995 and 2018 (Figure 4.9). This upward trend aligned Romania’s level of protection with that observed in other EU Member States.
Score from lowest (0) to highest (5) protection
Note: CPVO: Community Plant Variety Office. EU27 is the simple average of member countries’ indices, which are built using national legislation.
Source: Campi and Nuvolari (2021[61]), Data: www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/121001/version/V1/view.
The State Institute for Variety Testing and Registration (ISTIS) is responsible for providing legal protection to new plant varieties in Romania. Through 24 Variety Testing Centers, ISTIS conducts the technical examination of plant varieties for registration in the National Variety Register and the Official Catalogue. The registration of varieties of agricultural and horticultural species allows their cultivation and commercialisation in the territory of Romania and of the EU Member States.
ISTIS was established under Law No. 75/1995 concerning the production, quality control, marketing, and use of seeds and planting material, as well as the registration of agricultural plant varieties. It was reorganised from the State Commission for Variety Testing and Approval, originally set up in 1953, and now operates under Law No. 266/2002, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). ISTIS main duties include:
Developing examination methodologies and presenting new varieties for registration and publication.
Examining varieties for registration.
Preventing unauthorised use of biological material under examination and maintaining confidentiality upon request.
Storing seed samples of registered varieties.
Annually verifying the varietal purity of multiplied varieties.
Maintaining the Variety Register and annually publishing the Official Catalogue.
Liaising with international organisations in variety testing and registration.
To fulfil its duties, ISTIS collaborates with various departments within the MARD, research institutes, foreign companies, the National Seed Quality Inspection, the Central Laboratory for Seed and Planting Material Quality, territorial inspectorates, the Central Laboratory for Phytosanitary Quarantine, agricultural universities, and other entities both domestic and international.
4.4.5. Education and training
The agricultural sector is struggling with a shortage of adequately qualified labour to meet the sector’s evolving demands, which is primarily due to the aging workforce, low educational attainment, and skills mismatches. Additionally, skilled labour migration from rural areas to urban centres or abroad, driven by low agricultural income, exacerbates this issue (MARD, 2023[8]).
The low level of education, including of young farmers, poses a significant challenge for the future of the agricultural sector
The education level among Romanian farmers remains notably low, with a significant majority (94.5%) possessing only practical experience and no formal education or training as of 2020, with only a slight decrease from 97.5% in 2010. This percentage is the highest in the European Union, standing significantly above the EU average of 72.4% for the same year. Other EU Member States with high shares of farmers relying only on practical experience include Greece (94.1%), Croatia (91.7%) and Bulgaria (83.5%). Furthermore, despite the existence of educational institution offering secondary and tertiary education in agriculture (see Section 4.3.4), just 5% of Romanian farm managers had basic training and a mere 0.7% received full agricultural training, which is one of the lowest shares in the European Union, comparable to Greece. This trend is particularly pronounced among farmers aged 55 and above, where virtually no Romanian farmers had formal education (97.6% lacked any training, Table 4.2).
Note: “Young farmers” refers to farmers aged up to 35.
“Basic agricultural training” is any training course completed at a general agricultural college and/or an institution specialising in certain subjects (including horticulture, viticulture, silviculture, pisciculture, veterinary science, agricultural technology and associated subjects); a completed agricultural apprenticeship is regarded as basic training.
“Full agricultural training” refers to any training course continuing for the equivalent of at least two years’ full-time training after the end of compulsory education and completed at an agricultural college, university or other institute of higher education in agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, silviculture, pisciculture, veterinary science, agricultural technology and associated subjects.
Source: Author’s calculations based on (Eurostat, 2023[62]), Agricultural holdings and utilised agricultural area by training, age and sex of farm managers [ef_mp_training], (accessed October 2023).
Generational renewal in Romania’s agriculture has shown encouraging trends over the last decade (see Chapter 1). Nevertheless, this does not seem to be injecting so much-needed human capital into the sector, as the share of younger farmers (below 35 years old) with only practical experience (94.8%) closely aligns with the sector average. While younger Romanian farmers show a slightly higher tendency towards full agricultural education (2.1%), this proportion remains substantially below the EU average of 21.4% (Table 4.2).
Young people’s interest in agricultural education seems relatively low. This is evidenced by the decreasing number of graduates from agricultural schools, which dropped from 2 302 in 2014 to 1 650 in 2017, contributing to the overall low level of education among farm managers (EC, 2020[14]). In tertiary education, while the number of students enrolled in vegetal and animal resources engineering programmes saw a slight decrease at bachelor’s level, relative stability at master’s level, and an increase at doctoral level from the 2018/19 to the 2022/23 school years (MARD, 2023[8]).
Addressing the gap in agricultural education and training remains a fundamental challenge
The current agricultural curriculum lacks alignment with the diverse needs and interests of farmers, often prioritising theoretical aspects over practical projects and replication of successful solutions. Moreover, existing curricula require better adaptation to modern labour market.
Participation in vocational life-long learning programmes is scarce, with only 1.4% of the population aged 25-64 engaging in formal education over the previous 12 months, and even lower rates in rural areas at 0.7%, according to 2022 data (Eurostat, 2024[63]). While the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) offers relevant courses through its County Agricultural Directorates, their availability remains limited. Nonetheless, over the last seven years, participation in the “Second Chance Programme”, which provides opportunities for individuals who missed or did not complete primary or secondary education to join classes organised on a flexible schedule, has nearly doubled (Ministry of Education, 2022[64]; MARD, 2023[8]).
Public authorities are actively working to enhance the educational and training offer to attract new students. Notably, through the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP, Section 4.3.6), the MARD is investing in the modernisation of technical high schools with a predominantly agricultural profile. The plan also includes integrated dual consortia covering the full professional pathway at qualifications level 3-8, with training in agriculture and food subjects. Additionally, in the medium- to long-term, collaborative efforts of the MARD and the Ministry of Education aim to improve agricultural education through curriculum enhancements and triangular partnerships between secondary schools, business and public administration in the area of student’s internships. Furthermore, the “ReCONECT – Adaptation to Change – Integrated Mechanism for Anticipation, Monitoring, Labour Market and Education Assessment” project seeks to develop mechanisms to anticipate the skills demand in VET, monitor the socio-professional integration of initial VET and university graduates into the labour market, and examine relevant public policies. This will be achieved through a digital application enabling the collection and analysis of education and employment data (MARD, 2023[8]).
4.5.1. Outputs of R&D investment in agro-food science (publications and patents)
The performance of agricultural innovation systems can be monitored by proxy measures such as the number of patents or scientific publications (Table 4.3). While these metrics only provide a partial picture of the overall innovation performance, they can offer some insights into the country’s specialisation in agro-food research and its global relevance (OECD, 2023[9]).
Despite their limited number, R&D agro-food outputs exhibit a notable visibility and international collaboration
Between 2011 and 2020, Romania’s inventors filed on average three patents on agriculture and food science per year, accounting for 3.8% of all patents filed during this period. This share is lower than both the OECD (4.1%) and EU27 (5.0%) averages. Furthermore, the low specialisation level is even more pronounced in terms of scientific publications, with only 2.8% of publications devoted to agro-food topics, which is below the OECD and EU27 averages of 4.7% and 4.9%, respectively.
The importance of Romania’s agro-food science outputs on the international arena is limited, with Romania contributing 0.03% and 0.3% respectively to world agro-food patents and publications. While this aligns with countries such as Bulgaria and Lithuania, Romania stands out with a higher share of outstanding publications in this field, defined as belonging to the top 10% of most cited publications, accounting for 5.1%. Nonetheless, this figure remains below the OECD (11.9%) and EU27 (12.0%) averages.
Moreover, Romania demonstrates a relatively high level of collaboration with foreign partners on agro-food outputs, with 22.9% of total patents and 20.9% of publications involving foreign collaborators, surpassing the OECD and EU27 averages. However, this must be viewed in light of a low number of ago-food outputs, in particular in the case of patents.
Agriculture and food science R&D outcomes, 2011-20
1. Patents field under the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) by earliest filing date and location of inventors using fractional counts for Specialisation and Contribution and using whole counts for Collaboration. Agro-food includes patents from IPC classes: A01, A21, A22, A23, A24, B21H 7/00, B21K 19/00, B62C, B65B 25/02, B66C 23/44, C08b, C11, C12, C13, C09K 101/00, E02B 11/00, E04H 5/08, E04H 7/22 and G06Q 50/02.
2. Publications in the field of agricultural and biological science refer to the SCOPUS 2-digit All Science Journals Classification (ASJC) and include the following categories: agronomy and crop science, animal science and zoology, aquatic science, ecology/evolution/behaviour and systematics, food science, forestry, horticulture, insect science, plant science, soil science, and miscellaneous agriculture/biological sciences. Data are based on the fractional counts.
3. Top 10% of the world’s most cited publications in the field of the agricultural and biological science.
4. EU27 values are the averages of EU Member States, except in the case of Collaboration, where the figures represent collaboration between EU countries and non-EU countries only.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on OECD (2023), STI Micro-data Lab: Intellectual Property Database, http://oe.cd/ipstats (accessed August 2023); and OECD (2023), OECD STI calculations based on Scopus Custom Data, Elsevier, Version 1.2018; and 2018 Scimago Journal Rank from the Scopus journal title list (accessed August 2022).
4.5.2. Innovation for sustainability (successful cases of innovation for environmental sustainability)
This section showcases various agro-food innovation initiatives in Romania that contribute to environmental sustainability, productivity, and resilience.
“Robo-Fermier”: Developing precision agriculture for organic horticulture
Cultivating organic fruits is labour-intensive and involves repetitive tasks and moves. The “Robo-fermier” project aims to tackle the challenge of agricultural workforce availability in Romania while providing environmental benefits, including reduced emissions due to a photovoltaic charging solution and decreased pollution thanks to localised application of phytosanitary treatment.
The “Robo-Fermier” is a research and innovation project implemented by an Operational Group and funded under sub-measure 16.1a of the National RDP 2014-20. Its primary objective is to design and test a robotic platform capable of monitoring the phytosanitary status in plantations and applying disease and pest control solutions. Additionally, the “Robo-Fermier” can mow and shred weeds between rows and fruit trees, simplifying plantation maintenance. It moves autonomously around the plantation thanks to the application used to control the robot and batteries charged in the photovoltaic station.
The project brings together an organic fruit-producing company (project leader), a research and development station for fruit growing (Research and Development Station for Fruit Tree Growing Băneasa), a robotics spin-off company, and a consulting firm in the field of organic farming to develop precision agriculture solutions for ecological horticulture. Key project activities include designing and testing the robotic platform, developing software for disease and pest recognition, and creating a mechanised harvesting solution. Additionally, the project will include demonstration activities regarding the technology’s functionality, assessment of the economic efficiency of such a solution, and dissemination of the results.
“Eco-Fruct-BN”: Developing eco-friendly techniques for pest management in orchards
Pests like the apple worm, apple stem borer, plum worm, and plum fly pose significant challenges in orchards. The “Eco-Fruct-BN” project aims to develop and implement an economically viable strategic plan for integrated pest management (IPM). This initiative seeks to advance the adoption of low-chemical technologies in orchards and post-harvest fruit production, with the goal of minimising pesticide use, ensuring high quality fruits that meet market demands, and reducing the environmental impact.
The “Eco-Fruct-BN” project, funded under sub-measure 16.1a of the National RDP 2014-20, allowed specialists in ecological chemistry from Babeș-Bolyai University (researchers) and four farmers from the Bistrita-Năsaud county to join forces within the Operational Group (OG) to develop new eco-friendly techniques for pest management in orchards. Researchers bring the necessary expertise in implementing the IPM strategies to control pest without eradicating beneficial fauna, hence reducing pest populations to levels below the economic damage threshold. Farmers contribute with their experience and actively participate in implementing field experiments.
The research unit prepares the materials (including synthesized pheromones, dispensers, and traps) for field tests, while farmers conduct specific orchards maintenance activities incorporating innovative mating disruption biotechnologies. Indicators such as trap catches and fruits damage are monitored, and the effectiveness of eco-technics is evaluated. Experiments also attempt to assess the ability of ozone technology to preserve apples over the winter. Results from these experiments will be disseminated through conferences, workshops, and webinars with the partners, and encouraging other farmers to join the OG.
“Bee Smart, Bee Healthy”: Developing innovative tools for prevention and control of pests in beekeeping
Climate change negatively impacts beekeeping by reducing the availability of raw materials like nectar and pollen, while increasing the risks of diseases and pests. The globalisation has further exposed bee populations to new pathogens. Inadequate monitoring and poor practices also threaten bee welfare and the economic sustainability of beekeeping. Therefore, early identification and efficient combat of threats are essential for the well-being of honeybees and for achieving richer harvests.
The “Bee Smart, Bee Healthy” project, nominated for the EIP-AGRI Innovation Awards 2024, aims to enhance beekeeping efficiency through innovative tools designed to prevent and detect pests in bee colonies. Led by the Napoca Porolissum LAG Association, the project involves collaboration through the Operational Group and the Living Lab, among beekeepers, several Local Action Groups (LAGs), and other stakeholders.
At the centre of this project are the Smart Hives (SHs), which monitor bee colony behaviour and detect anomalies. These SHs will form the basis of an early warning system for infestations or hive anomalies. Plant extracts with biologically active components from api-/phyto-products will stimulate bee colony growth, indirectly boosting honey production, and effectively combat infections and invasions in hives. A Smart Sensory Network, consisting of all Smart Hives, will monitor bee colony welfare across a large territory. This network will continuously collect and analyse data to identify patterns of bee pathology over time and space. Analysing these trends and forecasts will not only help proactively address issues but also produce results that can be applied to conventional hives in selected areas.
The agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) in Romania must respond to the needs of a large number of small farmers with relatively low levels of formal education. Ninety-five per cent of the 2.8 million Romanian farmers have not received formal training and rely solely on practical experience. Despite recent positive developments in generational renewal, farmers under 35 years old also have low educational attainment and do not bring sufficient new capacities and skills to transform the sector.
Agricultural knowledge and innovation are gaining more importance in strategic plans and priorities in Romania, including in the CAP Strategic Plan for 2023-27 and in the National Strategy for Research, Innovation and Smart Specialisation 2021-27. However, given the heavy reliance on EU funds, it is crucial to take full advantage of these plans adapting their implementation to local needs. Additionally, the participation of CAP beneficiaries in professional training courses should be strengthened.
Over the last 30 years, the landscape of AKIS institutions has experienced frequent changes in different directions, resulting in the fleeting presence and activity of different actors, and fragmented collaboration among them. Limited resources remains a serious issue, especially in areas such as farm advisory services or research and development. The AKIS remains under the influence of several sectoral policies that need stronger coordination to contribute more effectively to the modernisation of Romanian agriculture and attract private sector funding.
Agricultural research efforts are largely driven by public institutes, with limited funding to upgrade research facilities and attract and retain the best researchers and technicians. Being part of the European Research Area, Romania has a great opportunity to leverage the research capacity of other Member countries and benefit from the exchange of experiences. As evidenced by the relatively large share of agro-food publications and inventions with foreign co-authors, Romania is already moving in this direction.
Recent initiatives, such as the legal framework for the introduction of a complete vocational education pathway, and investments in the modernisation of agricultural schools are promising steps. However, despite some important steps, the current level of education of Romanian farmers is still inadequate for the challenges and needs of the sector, requiring consistent efforts to upskill agricultural producers.
Raising the education level of Romanian farmers is a long-term goal, but other measures may be needed in the short term, notably in view of the limitations of existing agricultural advisory services. While the current focus of advisors on providing information on EU funding requirements helps farmers navigate administrative procedures, their assistance to farmers on the ground is still limited (e.g. on novel technologies and sustainable farming practices) due to high farmer-to-advisor ratio. Advisors’ availability for their direct interactions with agricultural producers on-the-ground is essential, as they have the potential to help identify research and education needs, thereby helping to drive agricultural innovation.
References
[12] Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Services (2011), Strategia de Cercetare‐Dezvoltare si de Inovare În Agricultură Şi Dezvoltarea Rurală Pentru Perioada 2014‐2020.
[26] ARACIS (2017), Standarde specifice privind evaluarea externă a calității academice a programelor de studii din domeniile de licență și masterat aferente. Comisiei de specialitate nr. 9. Științe agricole, silvice și medicină veterinară, https://www.aracis.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Standarde-specifice-Comisia-9-Actualizate-in-data-de-25.02.2022.pdf.
[23] Autoritatea Nationala pentru Calificari (2024), Registrul Național al Calificărilor Profesionale - RNCP, https://www.anc.edu.ro/rncp/ (accessed on 9 July 2024).
[61] Campi, M. and A. Nuvolari (2021), “Intellectual Property Rights and Agricultural Development: Evidence from a Worldwide Index of IPRs in Agriculture (1961-2018)”, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 57/4, pp. 650-668, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2020.1817395.
[42] Council of the European Union (2021), ANNEX to the Council Implementing Decision on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Romania, https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12319-2021-ADD-1/en/pdf (accessed on 7 March 2024).
[16] CRPE (2023), Sistemul de consultanță agricolă din România.
[31] EC (2024), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/funds/erdf/21-27 (accessed on 23 August 2024).
[36] EC (2024), Horizon 2020 - country profile: Romania, https://dashboard.tech.ec.europa.eu/qs_digit_dashboard_mt/public/extensions/RTD_BI_public_Country_Profile/RTD_BI_public_Country_Profile.html?Country=RO (accessed on March 2024).
[28] EC (2024), Horizon Dashboard, https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/horizon-dashboard (accessed on March 2024).
[30] EC (2024), Romania’s recovery and resilience plan, https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility/country-pages/romanias-recovery-and-resilience-plan_en (accessed on 13 May 2024).
[43] EC (2023), Approved 28 CAP Strategic Plans (2023-2027). Summary overview for 27 Member States Facts and figures, European Commission, Brussels, https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/approved-28-cap-strategic-plans-2023-27.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2023).
[51] EC (2023), Country Report - Romania, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. 2023 . European Commission. Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-05/RO_SWD_2023_623_en.pdf.
[58] EC (2023), Digital Decade Country Report 2023: Romania, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/country-reports-digital-decade-report-2023.
[55] EC (2023), EIP-AGRI Projects Database, https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/projects/about-eip-agri-projects_en (accessed on 25 August 2023).
[4] EC (2023), EIS interactive tool, https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard_en (accessed on 25 August 2023).
[29] EC (2023), ESIF 2014-2020 Finance Implementation Details (database), https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/2014-2020-Finances/ESIF-2014-2020-Finance-Implementation-Details/99js-gm52 (accessed on 7 September 2023).
[5] EC (2023), European Innovation Scoreboard 2023: Country profile Romania, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/rtd/eis/2023/ec_rtd_eis-country-profile-ro.pdf.
[6] EC (2023), Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2023: Regional profile Romania, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/rtd/ris/2023/ec_rtd_ris-regional-profiles-romania.pdf.
[17] EC (2022), Country Review of the Romanian Research and Innovation System.
[56] EC (2022), Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022, https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/88692.
[38] EC (2022), Measures to widen participation in Horizon 2020 were well designed but sustainable change will mostly depend on efforts by national authorities. european Court of Auditors, https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/sr22_15/sr_horizon_2020_widening_en.pdf (accessed on January 2024).
[1] EC (2022), Romania on an ambitious path to reform its research and innovation system, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/3983.
[41] EC (2021), Analysis of the recovery and resilience plan of Romania, SWD(2021) 276 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52021SC0276.
[2] EC (2021), PSF review of the Romanian R&I system – Background report, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/38334.
[14] EC (2020), Commission recommendations for Romania’s CAP strategic plan, SWD(2020) 391 final, Brussels, 18.12.2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020SC0391.
[40] EC (2012), “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the European Innovation Partnership ’Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’”, [COM(2012) 79 final, 29.02.2012], https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/communication_on_eip_-_en.pdf.
[33] EP (2024), European Parlimentary Research Service, http://dev-recovery-funds.pomilio.it/thinktank/infographics/RRF/?l=&lang=en (accessed on March 2024).
[32] EP (2023), Romania’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan., https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733641/EPRS_BRI(2022)733641_EN.pdf.
[63] Eurostat (2024), Participation rate in education and training by degree of urbanisation [trng_aes_105__custom_12120098], https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/page/trng_aes_105__custom_12120098 (accessed on 10 July 2024).
[62] Eurostat (2023), Agricultural holdings and utilised agricultural area by training, age and sex of farm managers [EF_MP_TRAINING__custom_7289470], https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/EF_MP_TRAINING__custom_7289521/default/table?lang=en&page=time:2020 (accessed on 30 August 2023).
[52] Fuglie, K. (2016), “The growing role of the private sector in agricultural research and development world-wide”, Global Food Security, Vol. 10, pp. 29-38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.07.005.
[34] Government of Romania (2024), HOTĂRÂRE nr. 207 din 14 martie 2024. pentru modificarea anexei la Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1.235/2022 privind aprobarea distribuției bugetului aferent reformelor și investițiilor finanțate prin Planul național de redresare și reziliență al României pentru, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/280024.
[25] Government of Romania (2024), Monitorul Oficial Al României, Partea I, Nr. 395 bis/29. 29 aprilie 2024., https://www.edu.ro/sites/default/files/fisiere%20articole/HG_412_2024.pdf.
[47] Government of Romania (2022), National Reform Programme 2022, https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/pnr_2022_romania_en.pdf.
[18] Government of Romania (2020), Decision no. 89 of January 28, 2020 regarding the organization and operation of the Authority for the Digitization of Romania, Official Monitor no. 113 of February 13, 2020, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/223055.
[57] Government of Romania (2015), National Strategy on the Digital Agenda for Romania 2020, https://gov.ro/en/government/cabinet-meeting/national-strategy-on-the-digital-agenda-for-romania-2020 (accessed on 20 March 2024).
[7] Guvernul României (2022), Hotărâre: privind aprobarea Strategiei Naționale de Cercetare, Inovare și Specializare Inteligentă, https://www.mcid.gov.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/strategia-na-ional-de-cercetare-inovare-i-specializare-inteligent-2022-2027.pdf.
[50] Heisey, P. and K. Fuglie (2018), Agricultural Research Investment and Policy Reform in High-Income Countries, ERR-249.
[8] MARD (2023), Agricultural Accession Review Questionnaire.
[46] MARD (2023), Ordinul nr. 554/2023 pentru modificarea Ordinului ministrului agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale nr. 146/2023 privind aprobarea Planului sectorial pentru cercetare-dezvoltare din domeniul agricol și de dezvoltare rurală - ADER 2026, https://www.madr.ro/docs/cercetare/2024/OM-554.pdf.
[65] MARD (2023), Raport de selecție intermediar a strategiilor de dezvoltare locală, ses.01/2023 - monofond, https://www.madr.ro/docs/dezvoltare-rurala/Axa_LEADER/2023-2027/2024/Raport-selectie-intermediar-monofond.pdf (accessed on 2024).
[10] MARD (2022), CAP PLAN 2023-2027 FOR ROMANIA. Version 1.2, https://www.madr.ro/planul-national-strategic-pac-post-2020/programare-ps-pac-2023-2027/consultari-pns.html.
[54] MARD (2019), Evaluarea măsurilor slab accesate din cadrul PNDR 2014-2020 (Final evaluation study of poorly accessed measures within the PNDR 2014-2020) (in Romanian).
[45] MARD (2019), Extrasul anexei nr. 2 la om nr. 341/2019 privind aprobarea planului sectorial –ader 2022, https://www.madr.ro/docs/cercetare/2019/extras-anexa-2-OM-341-Plan-sectorial-2019-30.10.2019.pdf.
[11] MARD (2015), Strategia Pentru Cercetare‐Dezvoltare-Inovare În Domeniul Agroalimentar Pe Termen Medium Şi Lung 2014-2020 / 2020-2023, https://www.madr.ro/docs/cercetare/strategia-cercetare-inovare.pdf.
[64] Ministry of Education (2022), ORDIN pentru aprobarea Metodologiei privind organizarea Programului „A doua șansă” — învățământ primar și a Metodologiei privind organizarea Programului „A doua șansă” — învățământ secundar, https://www.edu.ro/sites/default/files/OM_3.062_2022_ADS.pdf.
[22] Ministry of Education (2016), Standarde de pregătire profesională pentru calificări profesionale de nivel 3 si 4 al Cadrului național al calificărilor, https://www.edu.ro/standarde-de-preg%C4%83tire-profesional%C4%83-pentru-calific%C4%83ri-profesionale-de-nivel-3-si-4-al-cadrului (accessed on 9 July 2024).
[21] Ministry of Education (2016), Standarde de pregătire, învățământ liceal tehnologic, https://www.edu.ro/standarde-de-preg%C4%83tire-%C3%AEnv%C4%83%C8%9B%C4%83m%C3%A2nt-liceal-tehnologic (accessed on 9 July 2024).
[24] Ministry of Education and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2023), Ordin nr. 6.459/359/2022 privind modificarea anexei la Ordinul ministrului educației naționale și al ministrului agriculturii și dezvoltării rurale nr. 4.215/296/2019 pentru aprobarea listei liceelor tehnologice cu profil preponderent agricol, Official Gazette no. 43 of 16 January 2023, https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/263954.
[35] Ministry of European Investment and Projects (2024), POR 2021-2027 sinteză regiuni, https://mfe.gov.ro/por-2021-2027-sinteza-regiuni/ (accessed on 10 July 2024).
[44] Ministry of European Investments and Projects (2024), National Research Development and Innovation Plan 2022-2027 (PNCDI IV).
[19] MIPE (2024), National Research Development and Innovation Plan 2022-2027 (PNCDI IV), https://oportunitati-ue.gov.ro/en/program/planul-national-de-cercetare-dezvoltare-si-inovare-2022-2027-pncdi-iv/#rezumat-plan (accessed on 14 June 2024).
[49] National Institute for Statistics (2023), TEMPO-ONLINE. Statistical databases, http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed on 23 August 2023).
[39] OECD (2023), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2023: Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b14de474-en.
[59] OECD (2023), Information and Communication Technology database (ICT Access and Usage by Households and Individuals table), http://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed on 23 July 2023).
[9] OECD (2023), Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in the European Union, OECD Agriculture and Food Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/32810cf6-en.
[13] OECD (2020), OECD Agro-Food Productivity-Sustainability-Resilience Policy Framework: Revised Framework.
[48] Rakic, R. (2021), Fostering R&D intensity in the European Union: Policy experiences and lessons learned, Case study contribution to the OECD TIP project on R&D intensity, available at: https://community.oecd.org/community/cstp/tip/rdintensity.
[53] Ruane, J. and S. Ramasamy (2023), Global investments in agricultural research: Where are we and where are we going?, FAO, https://doi.org/10.4060/cc6971en.
[15] Rusu, M. (2014), AKIS and advisory services in Romania. Report for the AKIS inventory (WP3) of the PRO AKIS project.
[37] Schiermeier, Q. (2020), “Horizon 2020 by the numbers: how €60 billion was divided up among Europe’s scientists”, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03598-2.
[27] Toma, I. et al. (2019), AgriLink. The role of advisory services in farmers’ decision making for innovation uptake. Insights from case studies in ROMANIA.
[60] WEF (2019), “The Global Competitiveness Report 2019”, World Economic Forum, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf.
[3] WIPO (2022), Global Innovation Index 2022. What is the future of innovation-driven growth?, https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-2000-2022-en-main-report-global-innovation-index-2022-15th-edition.pdf (accessed on July 2023).
[20] Zaalmink, W. and M. de Groot (2022), Agricultural Education in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania, https://www.agroberichtenbuitenland.nl/documenten/publicaties/2022/01/18/agri-education.
← 1. “Innovation Leaders” have a relative performance above 125% of the EU average; “Strong Innovators” have a relative performance between 100% and 125% of the EU average; “Moderate Innovators” have a relative performance between 70% and 100% of the EU average, while “Emerging Innovators” have a relative performance below 70% of the EU average.
← 2. Local Action Groups (LAG) refers to local partnerships within the CAP LEADER approach.
← 3. Romania is divided into 41 counties and the municipality of Bucharest and the 42 CADs mirror Romania’s territorial organisational structure (MARD, 2023[65]).
← 4. The organisation and operation of CAD’s is regulated by Law no. 157/2016.
← 5. The creation of the Digital Policy Laboratory was a response to the results of the project “Strategic framework for the adoption and use of innovative technologies in public administration 2021-2027” conducted in partnership between the Authority for Digitalisation of Romania and the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca (MARD, 2023[65]).
← 6. The provisions of art. 20 of Law no. 227/2015 on the Fiscal Code.
← 8. The revision process involved the development of professional standards by labour market representatives, their implementation by the Sectoral Committees and their approval by the National Qualifications Authority (MARD, 2023[65]).
← 9. Nine comprehensive public higher education institutions: National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest, “Transilvania” University of Brasov, “Ovidius” University in Constanta, University of Craiova, “Dunărea De Jos” University in Galati, University of Oradea, “Lucian Blaga” University in Sibiu, “Ştefan Cel Mare” University in Suceava, “Valahia” University in Târgovişte, and 2 comprehensive private universities: Western University “Vasile Goldiş” in Arad and “Sapientia” University in Cluj-Napoca.
← 10. Measure 16 also includes sub-measures that do not target innovation or knowledge exchange. As a result, the funds allocated for agricultural R&D&I under the CAP 2014-22 might be overestimated compared to the CAP 2023‑27.
← 11. R&D intensity is defined as expenditure for R&D in the agricultural, and food and beverages sectors, or in the economy as a whole, in relation to the size of the sector or the economy.
← 12. M16 can also benefit recipients whose primary goal is not innovation or knowledge exchange, e.g. “small” operators in rural areas collaborating to achieve economies of scale.
← 13. Ratio of retained proposals to the total number of eligible proposals received.
← 14. The General Data Protection Regulation imposes obligations concerning data privacy and security. While the Regulation intends to protect personal data, it may have adverse effects on research as it creates barriers to data processing necessary for scientific research (Regulation (EU) 2016/679).
← 15. Currently, the data are primarily hosted on two national platforms: the MySmis platform, which encompasses data on investment and structural funds at the national level; and platform developed by UEFISCDI, the main executive agency for R&D&I programmes (MARD, 2023[65]).
← 16. The TRIPS made compulsory the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by a sui generis system. Moreover, it made the patentability of microorganisms and non-biological and microbiological processes for the production of plant varieties compulsory for WTO members.