agri-food value chain analysis report · agri-food value chain analysis report – august, 2016...

Agri-food Value Chain Analysis Report

August, 2016

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 681482. Coordinator: Q-PLAN International Advisors Ltd., Thessaloniki, Greece.

MainAuthorsü Prof.BrianMcKenna,Dr.JeroenKnol(EuropeanFederationofFoodScienceandTechnology)ü Dr.MladenRadišić(BioSenseInstitute)ü Mr.KostasGiagtzoglou,Ms.AnastasiaMatonaki(Q-PLANINTERNATIONALLTD)

LEGALNOTICETheinformationandviewssetoutinthisreportarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheofficialopinionoftheEuropeanUnion.NeithertheEuropeanUnioninstitutionsandbodiesnoranypersonacting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the informationcontainedtherein.

©INNO-4-AGRIFOODConsortium,2016Reproductionisauthorisedprovidedthesourceisacknowledged.

INNO-4-AGRIFOOD Project Information

Title: “Capitalising the full potential of on-line collaboration for SMEs innovationsupportintheAgri-Foodecosystem”(GrantAgreementNo681482)

Duration: March,2016–August,2018(30months)

Website: www.inno4agrifood.eu

Coordinator: Q-PLANINTERNATIONALLTD(www.qplan-intl.com)

Contactperson: Mr.KostasBougiouklis,Tel.:+302310411191,E-mail:[email protected]

ProjectOverview:

INNO-4-AGRIFOOD is an EU-funded project set on fostering and stimulatingonlinecollaborationfor innovationamongstSMEsactivewithintheEuropeanAgri-foodEcosystem.Tothisend,INNO-4-AGRIFOODaimsatdeliveringasetofdemand-drivenvaluepropositionsincluding:• A new generation of innovation support services to be provided by

specialised innovation consultants to agri-food SMEs, enabling them tocapitaliseonthefullpotentialofonlinecollaborationforinnovation.

• AsuiteofICTtoolstosupportthedeliveryofthenovelonlinecollaborationforinnovationsupportservices.

• A series of e-training courses to equip innovation consultants with theknowledge and skills required to successfully support the onlinecollaborationforinnovationendeavoursofagri-foodSMEs.

AllINNO-4-AGRIFOODvaluepropositionswillbeco-created,demonstratedandvalidated in real-life contexts. Moreover, the accumulated experience andlessonslearnedoftheprojectwillbediffusedacrossEuropesoastofuelthereplicationofitsresultsandthusenableSMEsinotherEuropeansectorstotapintothepotentialofonlinecollaborationforinnovationaswell.

Consortium:

1. Q-PLANINTERNATIONALLTD(www.qplan-intl.com)-Greece

2. APRE-AgenziaperlaPromozionedellaRicercaEuropea(www.apre.it)-Italy

3. IMP3rove-EuropeanInnovationManagementAcademy(www.improve-innovation.eu)-Germany

4. EFFoST-EuropeanFederationofFoodScienceandTechnology(www.effost.org)–TheNetherlands

5. BioSenseInstitute(www.biosens.rs)-Serbia

6. NationalDocumentationCentre(www.ekt.gr)-Greece

7. EuropaMediaNon-profitLTD(www.europamedia.org)-Hungary

Agri-foodValueChainAnalysisReport–August,2016 Page1

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................................2

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................4

2. OBJECTIVESANDSCOPE.............................................................................................................5

3. SURVEYOFRECENTEUROPEAN-WIDEASWELLASNATIONALSTRATEGICRESEARCHANDINNOVATIONAGENDASFORTHEAGRISECTOR...............................................................................................................6

3.1 Overview............................................................................................................................................63.2 RURAGRI(ERANET)-Facingsustainability:Newrelationshipsbetweenruralareasandagriculture

inEurope............................................................................................................................................73.3 ICT-AGRI(ERANET)-ICTandroboticsforsustainableagriculture.....................................................73.4 COREORGANICSPlusandTPOrganics..............................................................................................83.5 FABRETP-FarmAnimalBreeding&reproductionTechnologyPlatform.........................................93.6 ETPPlantsfortheFuture.................................................................................................................103.7 C-IPM(ERANET)-CoordinatedIntegratedPestManagement(IPM)inEurope...............................113.8 ERA-CAPS(ERANET)-CoordinatingActioninPlantSciences...........................................................123.9 EUPHRESCO(ERANET).....................................................................................................................123.10 PreStoGMO(ERANET).....................................................................................................................133.11 ConclusionsfortheAgrisector........................................................................................................13

4. SURVEYOFRECENTEUROPEAN-WIDEASWELLASNATIONALSTRATEGICRESEARCHANDINNOVATIONAGENDASFORTHEFOODSECTOR............................................................................................................14

4.1 TheFoodandDrinkindustry............................................................................................................144.2 EuropeanTechnologyPlatformFoodforLife(ETP).........................................................................164.3 JointProgrammingInitiative–AHealthyDietforaHealthyLife(JPI-HDHL)...................................174.4 TRADEITproject...............................................................................................................................194.5 ConclusionsfortheFoodsector......................................................................................................22

5. INTERVIEWSWITHADVISORYANDBENEFICIARIESBOARDS’MEMBERS................................................235.1 Howdo they see online collaborationwithin the agri-food value chain?Are their organizations

activeinonlinecollaborationandhow?..........................................................................................235.2 Whataretheirexperienceswithagri-foodSMEscollaboratingonline?.........................................235.3 Wheredoesonlinecollaborationhappen?......................................................................................235.4 Whataretherequestsandoffersofagri-foodvaluechainparticipants?.......................................245.5 WithwhomSMEsarecooperatingonlineandforwhatreason(s)?................................................245.6 ForwhatareSMEsusingonlinetools?............................................................................................245.7 Whataretheirexpectationswithrespecttoonlinecollaboration?................................................245.8 Conclusionsfromtheinterviews.....................................................................................................24

ANNEX........................................................................................................................................26


Executive summary

INNO-4-AGRIFOOD is an EU-funded project set on at fostering and facilitating online collaboration forinnovationamongstSMEswhichareactive intheEuropeanAgri-foodEcosystem.Tothisend,theprojectaimstoenhancetheserviceportfolioandpracticesofinnovationintermediariesandSMEsupportnetworksacrossEuropebyprovidingthemwithablendofdemand-drivenvaluepropositions.Theseincludeanovelset of innovation support services alongwithdedicated ICT tools to facilitate their delivery aswell as e-learningcoursesthatwillenableinnovationconsultantstoacquirethenecessaryknowledgeandskill-settosupporttheonlinecollaborationforinnovationendeavoursofagri-foodSMEs.

Inthiscontext,ananalysisoftheagri-foodvaluechainwasconductedwiththeprincipalaimtoidentifyandconclude on value chain areas which stand to benefit the most from the outcomes of the project. Inparticular,theanalysiswasbasedonareviewofavailablerecentStrategicResearchandInnovationAgendas(SRIAs)producedbyEuropean-wideandnationalinitiatives(e.g.ERANETs,ETPs,etc.).ThefocalfieldsoftheseinitiativesrepresentdynamicvaluechainareasoftheAgri-foodEcosystemwhereresearchandinnovationeffortsaswellasactorsareconcentratedandthustheinnovationsupportservicesandtoolsoftheprojectwouldbemeaningfultotargetwithaviewtoenhancingonlinecollaborationforinnovationandcreatingthemostimpact.Complementary,atotalof12interviewswereconductedwithvaluechainexpertswhoarepartoftheINNO-4-AGRIFOODBeneficiariesandAdvisoryBoards.

Withthat inmind, thereviewof relevantavailableStrategicResearchand InnovationAgendasaswellasexistingpolicydocumentation,indicatesthatboththeAgriaswellastheFoodsectoroftheagri-foodvaluechainstandtosignificantlybenefitfromonlinecollaborationaswellasfrominnovationsupportservicesandtoolstothisend.

Morespecifically, thefollowingresearchand innovationneedswere identified intheAgrisectorthatwillbenefitfromenhancedonlinecollaboration:

• Theneedforincreasedandenhancedcommunicationbetweenallplayersinthesector:Inparticular,technology transfer communication systems between the research providers and the farmingcommunity are needed. In addition, enhanced communication between both of these and theconsumerisessentialifnovelandmoresustainablefoodproductionmethodsaretobeacceptedandflourish. To achieve these goals, the communication must be timely and prompt while newmechanismsforknowledgetransferneedtobeidentified.

• Theneedforenhanced ICTtechnologies:Notonlyaretheseneededto facilitatetheabove listedneed,enhanced ICTtoolsarerequiredforthedeliveryandmanagementofanynovelproductionmethods.Inotherwords,enhancedon-farmmanagementandinformationtoolsareessential.

• Increasedtrans-national,multi-disciplinaryandcross-sectoralresearchactivitiesareessential:ThisisarecurringthemeinalloftheSRAsandshouldinvolvemanufacturingsectorsfromoutsidetheagri-foodvaluechain.

Furthermore,withrespecttotheFoodsectortheresearchandinnovationneedsthatwereidentifiedthatwillbenefitfromenhancedonlinecollaborationinclude:

• Lackofbusinessskills:Therearemajordeficienciesrightacrosstherangeofbusinessskillsthatarenecessaryforsuccessfulinnovation.

• Difficultiesinaccessingscientificknowledge:Itisalsoclearthatthelackofscientificexpertiseinthissectorinhibitsitsabilitytoinnovate.

• Theneedforenhancedtraininganddevelopmentunitsata local level,equippedwitharangeofmediatorsthatwillguideSMEsthroughtheinnovationprocess:Whiletheseareneededinallregions,itisnotyetestablishedwhetherthesamemodelwillbesuitedtoallregions.


FinancialconsiderationsaswellasthelargenumberofmicroSMEswillpreventtheaforementionedfrombeingdeliveredinperson.Consequently,solutionswhicheffectivelyutiliseICTwillbekeyintheframeofsupportingtheinnovationendeavoursofFoodSMEs.

Finally,theinterviewswithAdvisoryandBeneficiariesBoardsmembersattesttothelargelyunderexploitedpotentialofonlinecollaborationforinnovationandtheneedformoreactiveSMEsupportinthisrespect.TherearemanychallengesforwhichSMEsintheagri-foodvaluechainneedtocollaboratewithpotentialtechnology/knowledge providers and the potential of online collaboration to enhance their innovationcapacity is apparent. European innovation intermediates and support networks, such as the EnterpriseEuropeNetwork,aswellasSMEsclustersandotherkeystakeholders,includingNationalFoodTechnologyPlatformsandETPs,haveakeyroletoplaytowardstapingtothispotential.


1. Introduction

InthecontextofINNO-4-AGRIFOODanagri-foodvaluechainanalysiswasconductedinordertomapandevaluatethelandscapeanddynamicsoftheAgri-foodEcosystem,withaviewtoidentifyingandconcludingon the primary agri-food value chain areas uponwhich the project could focus. This analysis included atargeted reviewof recent,bothnationalandEuropean-wide, StrategicResearchand InnovationAgendas(SRIAs)andotherexistingpolicydocumentationalongwithaseriesofinterviewstargetingmembersoftheINNO-4-AGRIFOODBeneficiariesandAdvisoryBoards.

Thecurrentreportdescribestheresultsoftheanalysisandisstructuredin5distinctchaptersasfollows:

• Chapter 1 provides introductory informationwith respect to the INNO-4-AGRIFOOD project, thecontextinwhichthisreporthasbeenelaboratedaswellasitsstructure.

• Chapter2outlinestheobjectivesandscopeofthisreport.

• Chapter 3 provides insights gained through the survey and review of SRIAs focusing on the Agrisector.

• Chapter4presentsthevaluableinsightswhichweregatheredthroughthesurveyandreviewofSRIAswithemphasisontheFoodsector.

• Chapter 5 includes the results which stemmed from the interviews that were conducted withAdvisoryandBeneficiariesBoards’members.

Finally,theAnnexofthereportpresentsthequestionnairethatwasutilisedintheframeoftheinterviews.


2. Objectives and scope

The overarching objective of the agri-food value chain analysis, launched in the framework of INNO-4-AGRIFOOD,istoidentifyvaluechainareaswhereagri-foodSMEsstandtobenefitthemostfromtheservicesandtoolsoftheproject.

Tothisend,theagri-foodvaluechainanalysisaimsat:

• Shedding ample light on the widely diverse and complex Agri-food ecosystem by mapping andanalysingitslandscapeanddynamics.

• BetterunderstandingtheresearchandinnovationneedsofSMEswithintheagri-foodecosystem,astheyareamongstthemaindriversbehindtheircollaborations.

• Concludingonvaluechainareaswithunexploitedon-linecollaborationforinnovationpotentialandneedforSMEsupport.

Theagri-foodvaluechainanalysisencompassesthereviewofawidearrayofSRIAsandpolicydocumentsatnationalandEuropeanlevelaswellasinterviewsfromexpertsfromacrosstheEU.ThebroadscopeoftheanalysisiskeyforgatheringinsightsfromamultitudeofperspectivesthroughoutEuropeandthusenablingus to draw meaningful conclusions that will effectively guide the development of well-targeted valuepropositionsandactivitiesinthecontextofINNO-4-AGRIFOOD.


3. Survey of recent European-wide as well as national Strategic

Research and Innovation Agendas for the Agri sector

3.1 Overview TheEUpromotesdifferenttypesofplatforms,networksandjointinitiativeswhicharerelevanttoresearchandinnovationinagriculture:

• ERANETs:Networksofnationalresearchauthoritieswhocometogethertobetteraligntheirresearchprogrammes.

• European technology platforms (ETPs): Industry-led stakeholder fora that develop research andinnovationagendasandroadmapsforactionsatEUandnationallevel.

• Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs): Initiatives to pool national research efforts with the aim tooptimizetheuseofEurope'spublicR&Dexpenditure.

• Otherpublic-privateorpublic-publicpartnerships.

Alistofthemostrelevantinitiativesispresentedbelowbythemeorsector.

InitiativesrelevanttotheAgrisectoroftheagri-foodvaluechain

Horizontalthemes

• RURAGRI-NewrelationshipsbetweenruralareasandagricultureinEurope(ERANET).

• ICT-AGRI 2 - Information and Communication Technologies and Robotics for SustainableAgriculture(ERANET).

• COREOrganicPlus-OrganicFoodandFarmingSystems(ERANET).

• TPOrganics(ETP).

Livestock

• FABRETP–Animalbreeding(ETP).

Crops

• Plants(ETP).

• C-IPM-IntegratedPestManagement(ERANET).

• ERA-CAPS-CoordinatingActioninPlantSciences(ERANET).

• EUPHRESCOII-Phytosanitaryresearchcoordination(ERANET).

• PrestoGmo-ERANET-GMOresearch(ERANET).

Theaboveareorganizationswithparticularinteresttotheprimaryproductionsectoroftheagri-foodvaluechain.Most(butnotall)includeaStrategicResearchandInnovationAgenda(SRIA)aspartoftheiroutputs.AdetailedsectiondedicatedtoeachtheseinitiativesfollowsunderthisChapter,whichconcludewithsomeimportantconclusionsfromtheirreview.


3.2 RURAGRI (ERANET) - Facing sustainability: New relationships between rural areas and agriculture in Europe RURAGRI aims to improve coordination between on-going and future European, national and regionalresearchprogrammesdealingwiththenewrelationshipsbetweenruralareasandagricultureinEuropeandthe challenge of sustainability.While the challenges and issues aremostly common, and despite of thehistoricalcoordinationattheEUlevelforagriculturalandruraldevelopmentpolicies,researchonagricultureandruraldevelopmentismostlycarriedoutatanationallevelandremainsfragmented.

With the above in mind, research funding bodies (24 partners) from 20 European Member States andassociatedcountrieshavedecidedtosetupanERA-NETinordertodevelopalastingfocusednetworkthatwill identify and open new research fields. The aim is towork towards a common research agenda andcoordinated research funding to enhance coordination of research in the field of agriculture and ruraldevelopment.

Twoof itsworkpackagesare relevant to INNO-4-AGRIFOOD. Inparticular, theseareWorkPackage2on“Mappingofexistingresearchandinformationexchange”andWorkPackage3on“Elaborationofastrategictrans-nationalresearchagenda”.Theresearchneedsarecategorisedinto14areaswithinthreethemes:

• EcosystemServices/PublicGoods:e.g.thescarcitiesandprovisioningofresources.

• Socio-economic development: e.g. the economic and social activities in the rural areas and thevalorisationofresources.

• Landuse/LandManagement:e.g.conflictingtargetsinproductionvs.maintainingbiodiversityorproductionoffoodandfeedvs.productionofbioenergy.

Moreover,severaloftheresearchareasareofrelevancetoINNO-4-AGRIFOOD.Thesemainlyliewithinthesocio-economicthemeandincludethefollowing:

• Exploreeconomicactivities,publicandprivateservices,provisionofinfrastructureandtechnologytoenhancesustainabilityandidentifybestpracticessupportingvibrantruralareas.

• Identify barriers that hinder innovation and evaluate novel mechanisms and socioeconomicstructures(networks)whichencourageinnovationinruralareas.

• Identifyandevaluateagriculturaldevelopmenttrajectoriesindifferentruralareaspayingparticularattentiontothepotentialforspecialisationand/ordiversification.

Alloftheabovementionedwilldemandactionsthatrequiretheprovisionofassistance,adviceandsupporttoruralcommunitiesand,forefficiency,areexpectedtobedeliveredprimarilybyelectronicmeans.

Fromwithin the landuse theme,oneproposedtopicwill impactonothersectorsof theagri-foodchain,namely:Evaluatethoseeconomicnetworksutilisingnaturalresourcesthatresultinincreasingdemandsonland use; identify and explore novel resource efficient networks. This research could include consumerperspectives.

3.3 ICT-AGRI (ERANET) - ICT and robotics for sustainable agriculture TheoverallgoalofbothiterationsofICT-AGRIistostrengthenEuropeanresearchwithintheareaofprecisionfarmingandtodevelopacommonEuropeanresearchagendaconcerningICTandroboticsinagriculture.ICT-AGRI develops international research calls to pool fragmented human and financial resources over theboundariesoftheparticipatingcountries,inordertoimproveboththeefficiencyandtheeffectivenessofEurope’sresearchefforts.

IntheStrategicResearchAgendaofthisERANETInnovativeICTandroboticapplicationscanhelppavetheway towardsmore-sustainable,efficientagriculturalproductionsystems.The ICT-AGRIconceptcombines


several ICT and robotic solution themes for plant and animal production and farmmanagement whichcontributetothesolutionoftheaforementionedchallenges:

• SinceFarmManagementandInformationSystemsaretheback-bonesystemforallotherICTandroboticsolutiondomains,theyprovideacommonuserinterfaceacrosssolutiondomainsandactasrepositoriesforfarminformation.Theynormallyincludecommunicationandinformationexchangetoolsforliaisingwithexternalbodies.Time-consuminganderror-pronemanualdatacollectionmaybereplacedbyautomatedinformationcollectionandstorage.

• Variable-rateapplicationisthesite-specificapplicationoffertilizers,pesticidesorwater.Itrequiresempiricalinformationonthecurrentstateofcropandsoil,atasuitablespatialresolution,measuredbysensorsorhumanobservation.Automatedinformationexchangebetweendifferentapplicationsandcomponentsisthenessentialtogeneratedecisionsforoptimumapplications.

• Controlled-traffic farming (CTF)enablesgeo-positional controlof field traffic inorder tooptimizeyieldsandinputandreducenegativeenvironmentalimpacts.

• Precisionlivestockfarmingcanleadtoimprovedprofitability,workergonomics,andanimalhealthand welfare based on sensor measurements as well as on advanced ICT systems. Innovativeautomation technologies for precision livestock farming are now on the market. Some, such asautomaticmilkingandfeedingsystems,arewellestablished,andboastahighdegreeoffunctionalityandreliability.

• Advancedsystemsforautomatedindoorclimatecontrolshouldhelptoreduceenergyconsumptionandgreenhousegasemissions,aswellasimprovetheenvironmentingreenhousesandbuildingsforlivestock.

• Quality,safetyandtraceabilityoffoodandfeedarethemainobjectivesofautomatedqualitycontrol.Thisisessentialforensuringsafe,high-qualityfoodproducedunderanimal-andenvironmentally-friendly conditions for a continuously growingmarket. Research is needed on harvest and post-harvestfood-andfeed-qualityissues.

• Agriculturalrobotscanreplacehumansintheperformanceofmanuallabour,notablyinthecaseofhazardous work, in order to improve safety at work, labour ergonomics and efficiency, productquality,andenvironmentalsustainability.

Implementationofalloftheabovesolutionswillrequirethedevelopmentofawiderangeofsupporttools,manyofthemdeliveredviaICT.

3.4 CORE ORGANICS Plus and TP Organics TheERA-NETCoreOrganicsPlus and theTechnologyPlatformTPOrganicshave similar aims,namely, tosupport the development of organic agriculture. Specifically, the ERA-NET aims to provide innovativesolutions in organic food and agriculture for the next generation of food systems by seeking synergiesbetweenruraldevelopment,naturalresourcemanagementandthefoodsecurityandqualityERA-NetPlus.However,itisintheTechnologyPlatform,TPOrganics,thataStrategicResearchandInnovationAgendahasbeendeveloped.

Thetopicsoftheagendacanbesummarizedasfollowsunderfourheadings:

• Researchandinnovationtoovercomethechallengesoftheorganicregulation:

o Supportingthedevelopmentofadiverseorganicsectorthroughbetterfarmingpolicies,bettercertificationandmarketdata.

o Ensuringconsumerconfidenceinorganicfoodandfarming.

o Alternativestocontentiousinputsusedinorganicagriculture.


o Availabilityoforganicseeds–towards100%organicseed.

o Eco-efficientproductionofanimalfeedatlocallevel.

o Improvingorganicpoultrysystems.

o Developmentofinnovativesystemsfororganicaquaculture.

o Organicfoodprocessingconceptsandtechnologies.

• Organicfarmingandfoodsystemssupportcrucialempowermentinruralareas:

o Businessmodelsandlabourdynamicsofvalueadditionthroughfoodandfeedprocessing.

o Strengtheningtheresilienceandinnovationcapacitiesoftheorganicsector.

o Agro-ecologicalandorganicfarmingasmeansofimprovingfoodsecurityandruraldevelopmentinsub-SaharanAfricaandSouthAsia.

• Eco-functionalintensificationenhancestheproductivity,stabilityandresilienceofagro-ecosystems:

o Improvedecologicalsupportfunctions.

o Appropriateandrobustlivestocksystems.

o InnovativeICTtoolsfororganiccroppingsystems.

o Solutionsforresource-efficientprimaryproduction,basedonthe“Internet-of-Things”.

o Assessmentandsustainabilityofnewtechnologiesfororganicagriculture.

o Ecologicalsupportinspecialisedandintensiveplantproductionsystems.

o Breedingrobustplantvarietiesandanimalbreeds.

• Highqualityfoodsarethebasisforhealthydiets,wellbeingandqualityoflife:

o Thecontributionoftheorganicfoodsystemtosustainablediets.

o PublichealtheffectsoforganicfoodsystemsinEurope.

o Theeffectsoforganicfoodsandfoodsofdifferentqualityontheriskandseverityofallergies,andonthegeneralhealthandwellbeingofchildren.

3.5 FABRE TP - Farm Animal Breeding & reproduction Technology Platform Farmanimalbreedingandreproductionstandsatthebeginningoftheanimalproductionchain.Breedingcontributes to thebasisof robust,efficientandhealthyanimalswitha reducedneed formedicationandincreasedanimalwelfare.At the same time, researchand innovationareessential toensure continuousimprovementsneededforasustainableandcompetitivelivestocksector.Withthatinmind,theFABRETPworks on supporting partnerships between the private sector and knowledge centres to tackle majorchallengeswithsustainablefarmanimalbreedingandreproductiontechnologies.

WithinitsStrategicResearchAgenda,FABRETPhighlightsanumberofopportunitiesandgoals:

• Opportunity 1 - Global Responsibility and Competitiveness: European farm animal breeding andreproductionorganisationsaremarketleadersinacompetitiveglobalenvironment.Opportunitiesoriginatefromtheglobaldemandforfoodthatisproducedtransparentlyandwithrespectfortheenvironment.Forthis,afavourablecompetitivebusinessandregulatoryclimateisanecessity.Inthiscontext,specificgoalsinclude:

o Assureglobalfoodsecurityandsustainabilityofproductionsystems.

o Reducetheenvironmentalfootprintandwaste.


o Addressconsumerdemands.

o StrengthenEuropeanCompetitiveness.

o Developresponsibleownershipandprotectionofnewinnovations.

• Opportunity2-SocialResponsibility:Animalbreedingandreproductionhasanenormouspotentialtoimproveourlifestyleandprosperity.Opportunitiesarisefromthepossibilitiestosimultaneouslyimproveefficiency, animalwelfare, health andproductquality that ensure safe animalproducts.However, the links with the society are important. Therefore, accessible information, fulltransparencyandconstructivedialoguearenecessary.Goalsinthisframeencompass:

o Producesafeanimalproducts.

o Enhanceproductqualityandconsistency.

o Maintainandenhanceanimalwelfareandhealth.

o Achieveabalancedandtransparentregulatoryframework.

o Maintaininggeneticdiversitywhilerespectingdifferentculturalandregionalneeds.

o Improve consumer understanding of the application and potential benefits from newapproachesandtechnologies.

Within each of the abovementioned opportunities and goals, a detailed list of research challenges ispresented.However,suchdetaildoesnotfallunderthescopeofthecurrentreportandthusisnotincluded.

3.6 ETP Plants for the Future TheEuropeanTechnologyPlatform(ETP)“PlantsfortheFuture”isastakeholderforumfortheplantsectorwith members from industry, academia and the farming community. It serves as a platform for allstakeholdersconcernedwithplantstoprovidetheirviewsandrepresenttheirinterestsinanopendiscussionprocess.Itprovidesa20-yearvision,ashort-,medium-andlong-termStrategicResearchAgendaforEurope’splantsectoranditsetsupstrategicactionplanstopromoteInnovation,ResearchandEducationintheplantsector.

TheStrategicResearchAgendaoftheETPPlantsfortheFutureisbasedonfivechallenges:

• Healthy,safeandsufficient foodandfeed:Theproductionof foodandfeedremainstheprimaryobjectiveofplantscience.Overthepast50years,improvementsinourknowledgeofplantgenetics,physiology and agronomy have underpinned the large increases in crop productivity that haveoccurredandsubstantiallyenhancedaccesstoafargreaterdiversityoffoodonaglobalscale.Butnewchallengesarearisingand,overthecomingyears,Europeanplantscientistswillneedtopursuea number of objectives, including boosting food and feed output; improving the nutritional andsensoryqualityoffood;ensuringthesafetyofthefoodweconsume;anddevelopingcropsthatareresilienttoclimatechange.

• Plant-basedproducts,chemicalsandenergy:Thedeploymentofnovelnon-foodcropspeciesonascaleof tensofmillionsofhectares in thecomingdecades requiresmajor changesat thepolicy,regulatory,taxationandindustriallevels.BiofuelproductioninEuropecanbecostcompetitiveonthe internationalmarket,provided thathigh-techenergy crops, adapted to thedifferent climaticregionsandoptimisedforsustainablebiomassyieldunderlowinputagriculturecanberealised.

• Sustainableagriculture,forestryandlandscape:Agricultureandforestryhavealwaysbeendedicatedtoprovidinghumanitywithfood,animalfeed,energyandbiomaterials.Cultivatingmoreandmorelandhasbeenthetraditionalanswertoaddressingthegrowingneedsofthepopulation.However,thevolatilityofagriculturalsystemsandtheirvulnerabilitytouncontrollableclimaticconditionshasmeantthatsupplyingtheneedsofthehumanpopulationhasneverbeenaneasytask.


• Vibrantandcompetitivebasicresearch:VibrantbasicresearchisessentialforEUcompetitivenessinplant-basedindustries.Intheknowledge-basedeconomyofthefuture,competitiveandinnovativenewproductswillspringfromfundamentaldiscoveries.Knowledgeandintellectualpropertywillbecriticaltofulfillingthegoalsoutlinedintheotherfourchallenges.

• Consumerchoiceandgovernance: Iftheplantsciencesector issuccessfullytoinnovateandbringnewplantproductstothemarketplace,animportantgoalthatmustbeachievedwillbetoincreasetheinvolvementofthepublicandconsumersindiscussingresearchanddevelopmentgoals.Firstly,therewillbeaneedtoincreasethepublic’sknowledgeofthefield,whiledevelopingwithintheplantsector a greater awarenessof public and consumer attitudes andbehaviour towards agriculturalresearchandproductionsystems.

3.7 C-IPM (ERANET)- Coordinated Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Europe The ERANETwhich focuses on Coordinated Integrated PestManagement (IPM) in Europewas launchedestablishedwithaviewto:

• CreatingaforumforexchangeandidentificationofIPMresearchanddevelopmentpriorities.

• ProvidingrecommendationsonnationalandEuropeanresearch.

• Connectingexistinginitiatives.

• Coordinatingjointtransnationalresearchcalls.

Infact,withstakeholdersandresearchersC-IPMaimsatpositioningIPMinthefutureEuropeaninnovationlandscape.TothisendtheC-IPMERANETproducedaStrategicResearchAgenda(SRA)inJune2016.TheSRAprovides recommendations on future European and national IPM research in terms of challenges foragricultureandcropproduction.

Inparticular,theSRAhasthefollowingspecificobjectives:

• SupportnetworkIPM-relatedresearchandcreatesynergiesbasedonastatusquosurveyofexistingresearchactivitiesonIPMwithintheEU.

• Identifyoverlapsandgapstoavoidduplicationsaswellasopportunitiesandcomplementaritiesforimprovedtransnationalcoordinationandjointinitiativesonresearch.

• Enhance pre-existing and establish new linkages between research programmes and initiativestowardscoordinationofIPMresearchanddevelopment(R&D)inEurope.

• IdentifyfuturechallengesforEuropeancropprotectionwhichrequireIPMsolutions.

• Feed emerging research demands to meet these challenges into the Horizon 2020 frameworkprogram.

• Identifyopportunitiesandmechanismsforknowledgetransfer/sharing,traininganddisseminationofinformationofIPMresearch.

Moreover,thedetailedresearchsuggestionsandchallengesoftheSRAaregroupedinto4majorcorethemesasfollows:

• CorethemeA:Preventiveandsustainable(pest)management.

• CorethemeB:Alternativetoconventionalpesticidesandinnovativecontrol.

• CorethemeC:IPMinMinorCrops.

• CorethemeD:DriversandimpactofIPM.


ManyofthedetailedsuggestionsoverlapwiththedetailsinotherSRAsand,withminorwordingchanges,appear in the SRAsof other agencies. For example, the suggestionsbelow could easily transfer tootherdisciplines/subjectareas:

• Fosterinterdisciplinaryresearchincludinghumanandsocialsciencestoworkattheleveloftheentirefoodchain.

• Develop research programmes in universities and institutes with multi-actor perspectives andtransferstakeholderinputandresearchresultstoendusersimmediately.

• Encourage research on “lock-in” and transition phase to examine to what extent agriculturalorganisationsare locked inby“pastsocio-technicalchoices”and identifypossiblemechanismsoftransitiontoIPMthatconsidermulti-actorperspectives.

• Considertheimportanceofpublic-drivenbehaviourofNGO’sacrossMemberStatesandtakeitintoaccountforresearchprogrammesonscientificsocial/politicalaspects.

• Communicate promptly to stakeholders about success stories of IPM based on local or regionalexperiencesandfocusonhowIPMwouldbeimplementedatscalesbeyondthefarm.

• Identifysocio-technicalandsocio-economicimpedimentsbehindIPMimplementationandmeanstocopewiththem;

3.8 ERA-CAPS (ERANET) - Coordinating Action in Plant Sciences Plant sciences face important challenges at the European and global scale due to a burgeoning worldpopulationthatrequiressustenance.Reliableproductionofhigh-qualityandsafefood,feedandrenewableCarbonsuppliesforgreenchemistry,withouttheuseofexcessland,energy,water,pesticidesandchemicalsisthereforeessential.

InthiscontextandinordertoensurethattheEUhasthescientificunderstandingtorevolutioniseagriculturalcapabilitiestodeliverhigheryieldswithlowerinputsinachangingclimate,theERA-CAPSwasformed.ERA-CAPS unites the scientific and economic capabilities ofMember States and enables the coordination ofsustainable transnational plant science research programmes. While this ERANET has published manyfunding calls, it does not have its own SRA andmay rely on SRAs from others within the plant sciencediscipline.

3.9 EUPHRESCO (ERANET) Euphrescoisanetworkoforganisationsfundingresearchprojectsandcoordinatingnationalresearchinthephytosanitaryarea.Morespecifically,amongstismainaimsareto:

• Strengthenthebasisfor,andresultin,aself-sustainable,long-term,durablenetwork.

• Deepenthecooperationthroughcontinuedtransnationalresearchthatoptimiseslimitedresources,supportsotherplanthealthinitiativesandcoordinationmechanisms,andfurtherdevelopsacultureofcollaboration.

• Deepenthecooperationbyimprovingprocessesandtoolsandreducingbarriers.

• Enlargingthenetwork (31partners,plus14observers) to increase itscriticalmass,addressmoreregional or sector-based (e.g. forestry plant health) issues and increase opportunities forinternational cooperationwith non-European countries that are either the source of quarantinepestsorsharesimilarpestproblems.

EuphrescohasnotproducedaStrategicResearchAgendabutamongthetopicsofinteresttotheminthepastthereareforestrelatedtopicsaswellastopicsrelatedtopotatoandothersolanaceae,fieldcrops,fruit


production,specificquarantineoremergingphytosanitarypestsor taxonomicgroupsofpests,diagnosticmethodsforquarantineandemergingphytosanitarypestsaswellasonsciencesupportingpestriskanalysis.

3.10 PreSto GMO (ERANET) The PreSto GMO ERANET lays the groundwork for transnational research on health, environmental andtechno-economic impacts of GeneticallyModified Organisms (GMOs). The project engages stakeholdersthroughout all of its stages to ensure that future research in this area will also be highly relevant andmeaningfulfromabroadersocietalperspective.

WhilethisERANEThasnotproducedanydocumententitledasaStrategicResearchAgenda,itdidproduceaComprehensive listofGMO impact researchtopics inAugust2015.This includesa listingof380detailedresearchtopicsthatpertainto insects,plants,otheranimalsandgeneticallymodifiedmicro-organismsaswellastotheirimpactonanimal/humanhealthandtheenvironmentalongwithtechno-economicissues.Thetopics,however,aresonumerousanddetailedthat it isnotpossibletogroupthemintomeaningfulcategoriesinthecontextofthisreport.

3.11 Conclusions for the Agri sector InspiteofthefactthatallthespecificresearchneedsfromtheindividualETPsandERANETSdifferaccordingto their specific subsector of production agriculture, a number of generic cross-sectoral topics can beidentified.Theseare:

• Theneedforincreasedandenhancedcommunicationbetweenallplayersinthesector:Inparticular,technology transfer communication systems between the research providers and the farmingcommunity are needed. In addition, enhanced communication between both of these and theconsumer isessential ifnovelandmore sustainableproductionmethodsare tobeacceptedandflourish. To achieve these goals, the communication must be timely and prompt while newmechanismsforknowledgetransferneedtobeidentified.

• Theneedforenhanced ICTtechnologies:Notonlyaretheseneededto facilitatetheabove listedneed,butenhancedICTtechnologiesarealsoessentialforthedeliveryandmanagementofanynovelproductionmethods. In otherwords, enhanced on-farmmanagement and information tools areessential.

• Increasedtrans-national,multi-disciplinaryandcross-sectoralresearchactivitiesareessential:ThisisarecurringthemeinalloftheSRIAsandshouldinvolvemanufacturingsectorsfromoutsidetheagri-foodvaluechain.

OnlinecollaborationsupportservicesandtoolsthatwillfacilitateandenhancetechnologyandknowledgetransferaswellashelpSMEsinfindingandsuccessfullycollaboratingwiththerightinnovationpartner,canhelptowardsaddressingtheabovementionedneeds.


4. Survey of recent European-wide as well as national Strategic

Research and Innovation Agendas for the Food sector

4.1 The Food and Drink industry TheEuropeanFoodindustryisthelargestmanufacturingsectoroftheEU(14.9%oftotalturnoverand12.9%ofaddedvalue)aswellasitslargestemployerwith4.2millionpeoplebeingdirectlyemployed.Moreover,itisthelargestfoodanddrinkproductsexporterintheworldandthesecondlargestimporter,withapositivetradebalance.Ithasadiverseproductrangewithbakery,meatandmeatproducts,dairyproductsanddrinksbeingthetopfoursectors.

Withthatinmind,thepresentChapterofthereportprovidesinsightsintothecurrentstatusoftheResearchandInnovationlandscapeoftheEUFoodsector,whichisdominatedbySMEs,manyofwhichcanbeclassifiedasfallingintothemicroSMErange.Indeed,innovationsupportactionsforEuropeanfoodSMEsallsufferfromtheveryskewedsizedistributionoffoodmanufacturers.Thetablebelowhighlightsthisproblem.Formanyyearsnow,FoodDrinkEuropehaspublishedannual statisticaldatadrawingon theirownaswell asEurostatdata.Furtheranalysisofthesedataispresentedinthefollowingtable.

Table 1 Employment in the European food manufacturing sector

Typeofcompany Numberofemployees NumberofcompaniesAveragenumberofemployees

LargeCompanies 1,541,000(36.7%oftotal) 2,601(0.9%oftotal) 592

SMEs(all) 2,658,600(63.3%oftotal) 286,399(99.1%oftotal) 9.2

MediumSMEs(50-249) 1,096,200(26.1%oftotal) 10,693(3.7%oftotal) 102.5

SmallSMEs(20-49) 499,800(11.9%oftotal) 16,473(5.7%oftotal) 30.3

SmallSMEs(10-19) 415,800(9.9%oftotal) 31,501(10.9%oftotal) 13.2

MicroSMEs(0-9) 646,800(15.4%oftotal) 227,732(78.8%oftotal) 2.84

TOTAL 4,200,000 289,000 14.5

Source:FurtheranalysisofdatapublishedbyFoodDrinkEurope

Fromthedatapresentedbythetableabove,onecanseethatdespiteanoverallaverageof14.5employeespercompanyandaverysignificant592employeespercompanyinthelargercompanies,thenumbersfalldramatically within the SME sector. In particular, micro SMEs only average less than 3 employees percompany.More importantly, these comprise almost 79% of the total number of foodmanufacturers inEuropeandaccountfor6.5%oftotalturnoverfortheindustry.EvenwhenconsideringSMEsasawhole,theaveragenumberofemployeespercompanyisonly9.2whiletheyaccountforjustunderhalf(49.7%)ofthetotalturnover.TheseareratherworryingstatisticsastheyimplythathalfthefoodmanufacturinginEurope(byturnover)comesfromcompaniesthataresosmallthattheyareunlikelytoemployanyscientificstaffandmaybeincapableofassimilatingscientificknowledgeortechnologytransferfromwhereveritisgiven.This raises the question of how such companies can hope to innovate since they will have difficulty in


assessingthelatestscientificdevelopmentsand,aswillbeseenlater,havedifficultyingoingthroughthevariousstepsrequiredtogrowtheircompanyandinnovate.

Inthiscontext,whiletherearemanypublishedStrategicResearchandInnovationAgendas(SRIAs) intheFood sector, the majority of them are “wish lists” of future research funding topics put together bycombinations of academic, research and industry scientists. This is not to imply that these are not theirhonestperceptionsofwhatproblemsneedsolutionsifthefoodindustryistoinnovate.However,innovationsupportserviceandtoolsaswellasonlinecollaborationforinnovationamongstSMEs,whichlieattheheartofINNO-4-AGRIFOOD,areoftenoutsidethescopeofstrategicresearchandinnovationplans.Rather,theseare covered in subsequent Implementation Action Plans which, unfortunately, are rarely produced.Nevertheless,thereareasignificantrangeofdocumentsthatcanbeassessedforrelevancetotheaimsofINNO-4-AGRIFOOD.Below,arangeofimportantinitiativesthatproducerelevantdocumentsisprovidedandgroupedbytheirgeographicalscope.

InitiativesrelevanttotheFoodsectoroftheagri-foodvaluechain

Europeanlevel

• EuropeanTechnologyPlatformFoodforLife

• JPIAHealthyDietforaHealthyLife

• TRADEITProject

NationalLevel

o AustrianTechnologyPlatform

o NationalFoodPlatformBelgium,Wallonia

o NationalFoodPlatformBelgium,Flanders

o NationalFoodPlatformFinland

o NationalFoodPlatformFrance

o NationalFoodPlatformGreece

o NationalFoodPlatformIceland

o NationalFoodPlatformIreland

o NationalFoodPlatformItaly

o NationalFoodPlatformLithuania

o NationalFoodPlatformMontenegro

o NationalFoodPlatformSwitzerland

o NationalFoodPlatformTurkey

o NationalFoodPlatformUkraine

Despitebeingalengthylistofresearchneeds,thepublicationsoftheindividualcountryplatformstendtoconfinethemselvestoproblemsrelatedtospecificfoodsandprocessesanddonotdealwiththemechanismsfordeliveryoftechnologytransferandinnovationsupport.Becauseofthis,detailedinformationispresentedonlyfromtheSRIAsproducedbytheEuropeanTechnologyPlatformFoodforLife,theJointProgrammingInitiative(JPI)-AHealthyDietforaHealthyLifeandtheTRADEITProject,inthesectionsthatfollow.


4.2 European Technology Platform Food for Life (ETP) TheETPFood for Lifewas setup in2004and, in addition toproducing several iterationsof its StrategicResearchandInnovationAgenda,hasalsobeencommittedtoproviding innovationsupporttoolstofoodSMEs. Indeed, its 2014document aims to “provide the tools to strengthen an SME innovationplatform.Innovationisnotjustaboutnewideas,buthowtouseandcombineprocessandmaterialaspectsinnewways.InnovationefficiencybySMEscanbeimprovedbasedoninfrastructuralimprovementsreducingtimetomarket.OftenthereisagapbetweenresearchersdevelopingnewtechnologiesandSMEsthatmustbemoreefficientlybridged. In somecases, innovationbySMEs is lowand infrastructural improvementsarenecessary,asSMEsdonothavethecapacity totakeupnewtechnologies fromtheresearchcommunity.Innovativeandpractical toolswillbenecessarytoachievethisandwillnecessitatenotonlyconventionalopen innovation but also the development of communication and support tools that will bring newpossibilitiestoSMEsthatdonotnecessarilyhavethein-housescientificcapabilitiesofdoingsounassisted”.In other words, the very online collaboration for innovation support services and tools that INNO-4-AGRIFOODaimstogenerateareperceivedasanimportantdemand.

AtthesametimetheSRIAoftheETPFoodforLifealsoforesawamajorcommunicationchallengeforfoodSMEs.Thiswasnotconfinedtotheclassicalareasofindustry-consumercommunicationbutwasforeseenforanumberof targetaudiences, includingthecompaniesthemselves.Morespecifically thecommunicationchallengesforeseenforthedifferentstakeholdersare:

• Forgovernmentsandpolicymakers:HowtodevelopstrategiesforfutureresearchandinnovationfundingthatfosterappliedresearchandinnovationuptakeandraiseawarenessabouttheinnovationopportunitiesandtheimportanceofthefoodanddrinksectoracrossEurope.

• For the general public: Securing a steady and continuous relationship with consumers via the“umbrellarole”ofconsumerassociations,lookingforwardtotheacceptanceoftheconsumersonthe technologyused in the context in a sustainable foodproduction.Also assuring an importantsocietaldialoguewithgovernmentalandnon-governmentalbodieswithadirectorindirectagendaonfoodissues.

• For companies and SMEs: Exchanging reliable information and using appropriate communicationtechnologies including direct contact on a national level between companies and associations.Enabling the National Food Technology Platforms (NTPs) as “partners of trus” and motivatingcompaniestoengageintheapplicationofinnovationprocessesandappliedresearch.

• Forresearchers:Motivatefoodresearcherstoseetheirworkinalargersocietalcontext,andwheretheirsuccessultimatelywillbedeterminedbytheirabilitytounderstandandsupporttheinterestsofcompaniesandconsumers.

• Forothermembersofthefoodchain:Explorecollaborationopportunitieswithotherstakeholdersalongthefoodchain.

• For other disciplines: Identify the areas for interdisciplinary collaboration with the ICT,manufacturing,energy,water,nanotechnology,transportsectorstoadaptalreadyexistingsolutionsdevelopedforotherusersandtodevelopnewsolutionstoenhanceinnovationinthefoodsector.

Therearealso training challengesdetailed in theSRIA thatwill also requiredifferentelementsofonlineassistance.Theseincludechallengessuchas:

• Raisingtheinvestmentlevelintrainingandlife-longlearninginthefoodindustrysincetheproportionof companies employing internal or external training as a key component of a clear innovationstrategyisparticularlylow.

• Provisionoftraining in innovationmanagementtofoodSMEs i.e.developingtheskills toconvertoutputsofcommerciallyviableR&Dprojectstonewproducts,processes,servicesandbusinessskills,includinginformation,knowledgeandresourcemanagement.SincethemajorityofSMEsseemto


prefertolearnfromeachother,collectiveactivitiesthatoffertheopportunityoflearningthroughexchangeofviewswithotherindustrypersonnelandwithscientistsshouldbepromoted.

• Development of “Training and Dissemination Units” (TDU) within Food and Drink Federationsequippedwithanumberof 'Techno-ScienceMediators'(TSMs).TDUsarespecifiedunitsaimedatthefosteringofcommunicationandincreasinginnovationawarenesswithincompanies.TSMsarespecifically-trainedmediators,skilledintechnologyauditandcommunication.

• DevelopmentofaEuropeanAcademyforOpen Innovationtosecurea futuretothis triangle (i.e.company needs, training initiatives capable of serving the companies, efficient and pervasiveinnovationtransfer)bynetworkingthebestavailablepracticesinEurope.TheAcademywouldsecurea two-waydialoguewithexistingexperienceand resources indiversepartsofEuropeandwoulddevelopanetworkofnationaltrainers.

Finally, there are technology transfer challenges that also require the same philosophical initiatives asenvisagedwithinthecontextofINNO-4-AGRIFOOD.Theseare:

• Development of a credible partner supporting innovation system and delivering its associatedsolutions.

• Encouraging industry interactionandcollaborationwithnewprogrammesandtoolswhichwillbeimplementedinthefutureEuropeanInnovationarea.

• Promoting the success of a European Food Knowledge and Innovation Community to supportinnovationandtraining.

• Development of country, regional and Europe-wide support systems that can foster technologytransferthroughtheuseofsuchmechanismsasTechno-ScienceMediators.

• UseofNationalTechnologyPlatformsto:

o UndertakenationalsurveysonchangingR&DneedsofthefoodindustrywithspecificfocustoSMEs,inordertohaveaglobalviewofthecurrentsituation.

o Developmethodsforthebestuseofcollectiveresearch,marketingandsupplychainresourcemanagementactivitiesinordertoenhanceinnovationatfoodSMEs.

o Undertakea conceptdesign study for aneducational approachat all levels inorder tomeetindustryneedsmoreeffectivelyandtocoordinatebettertheexistingtrainingcapacity.

4.3 Joint Programming Initiative – A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life (JPI-HDHL) LikeinmostotherSRIAs,communicationandtechnologytransferplayanimportantroleintheoutputsofJPI-HDHL. However, as much of its focus is on the areas of diet and health, communication betweengovernment, industry and consumers dominate the communication needs. However, inter-industry andexperttoindustrycommunicationisnotignored.Forexample,adirectquotestates:“NeithertheprimaryproductionsectorsnortheSmallandMediumEnterprises(SME)thatdominatethissectorintheEU(99.1%of the 286,000 companies were SMEs in 2011) can invest in long-term or large-scale research anddevelopment(R&D).Smallfoodcompanies,inparticular,areunabletotakeontheinnovationchallengeandso a joint and coordinated initiative is required. Effective partnerships built on public and privatecollaborations, and funding, are necessary to identify the most important research needs and to poolresources. Consideration must also be given to laws and regulations and the protection of intellectualproperties(IP)arisingfromthisresearchtoensurethatSMEscanderivebenefitsfromtheiroutputs.ThiswillfosterastrongcultureofinvestmentinR&Dinthissector.”ThiscouldbeinterpretedasbeingverysimilartothethinkingoftheETPFoodforLife.


Moreover,inadditiontohavingafocusonhealthandsocietalissues,itdoesaddresscommongroundwithother SRIAs through its philosophy of seeking information and advice from across a broad spectrum ofscientistsandpromotinginterdisciplinaryactivity.“Aswellashavingimplicationsforqualityoflife,additionalramificationsforaninnovationtrajectorycanbeidentified.Forexample,thereisanurgentneedtotranslateresultsofscientificresearchmoreeffectivelyintoconcreteandactionablepolicyinitiatives.Closerinteractionbetweenpolicyactors,healthprofessionalsandscientistswillensurethatpolicyquestionscanbetranslatedintoscientificactivities,andviceversa.Moreeffectiveinterdisciplinarycollaborationbetweenthenaturalandsocialsciencesisrequired,asmanyoftheissuesandemergingproblemsarecausedbybothbiologicalandsocio-economicfactorsandtheirinteraction”.

Thevisionisthatby2030allcitizenswillhavethemotivation,abilityandopportunitytoconsumeahealthydietfromavarietyoffoods,havehealthy levelsofphysicalactivityandthatthe incidenceofdiet-relateddiseaseswillhavedecreasedsignificantly.However,toachievethis,anintegratedmulti-sectorapproachwillbe necessary, embracing education, health care, agriculture, environment, food and drink industry,transport,advertisingandcommercewillbeessentialtopositionfood,nutritionandrelatedpublichealthpolicyandevidencefromresearchsufficientlyhighonthepoliticalagendasothatthecombinedeffortcanbetranslatedintorealhealthimprovements.Thus,itisclearthattosuccessfullyimplementtheoutputsofdiet andhealth research, itwill benecessary to develop a strongplatformencompassingpolicymaking,effectivecommunicationaswellasknowledgeandtechnologytransfer.

However,theentireJPI-HDHLisnotsolelyfocussedonthedietandhealthoftheconsumer.Oneofitsthreeresearch pillars has an implicit industry focus. This is the pillar onDiet and food production: developinghealthy,high-quality,safeandsustainablefoods.Accordingtothispillar,theagriculturalandfoodindustriesarefacedwiththechallengeofproducingsafeandtastyfoodsthatareconsistentwithhealthstatus,lifestyleandculture,andthatmeetconsumerpreferences.Thisrequiresresearchtoincreasetheunderstandingoffoodanddietcompositionsforoptimalhealth,todevelopnewfoodsandtoimproveproduction,processing,packagingandproperfoodchainmanagement.Newfoodshavetocomplywithhealth,nutritional,energyandsafetyneedsofconsumersandalsowith legislation,andbeaffordable.Anadditionalchallenge is todevelopinnovativeproductsandprocessesinacost-effectiveandsustainablewayandtoprovideinsightsintothebarriersandfacilitatorsfortheagriculturalandfoodindustriestodevelopsustainablefoodsthatwillalsobenefithumannutrition.Foodsmustoriginatefromsystemsthatproduce,process,store,packageandsupplyfoodsinafullysustainableway.

In thiscontext, theoverallgoalof thispillar is to improvethequalityof foods, foodproductionsystems,distributionandmarketingtoprovidehealthier,safe,sustainableandaffordablefoodsthatalsocontributetomarketadvantagesforfoodproducersandthefoodanddrink industry.Sincetheagricultureandfoodindustriesarefacedwiththechallengeofproducingtastyfoodsthatareconsistentwithhealthstatusandlifestyle,andwhichmeetconsumerpreferencesandthusensurerepeatedpurchasetheywillneedtoshareknowledgeanddataand carryoutharmonised researchwithin theareaofdiet and foodproduction.Ofcourse,theymustdevelopinnovativeproductsandprocessesinacost-effective,sustainableandaffordablewayandthefoodsmustoriginatefromsystemsthatproduce,process,store,packageandsupplyfoodsinaneconomicandsustainableway.Theagricultureandfoodindustrieswillalsoneedtoadaptandincorporatemodernnutritionalandproductionphilosophies,suchasleanandagilemanufacturingoffoodswithlowercontentofsaturatedfat,sugarandsalt,suchasthosewhichhaveprovedtobesuccessfulinothermarketsectorsandwhichallowproducerstoremainattheforefrontofmarketinnovation.

WiththeaboveinmindandgiventhestructureoftheEuropeanfoodindustry,whichisdominatedbymicro-SMEs,itbecomesevidentthattheachievementofthisgoalwillrequireallofthesamecommunicationandtechnologytransfersupportsystemsthatwereneededbytheETPFoodforLife.


4.4 TRADEIT project The TRADEIT project is one of two sister EU funded projects aimed at providing entrepreneurship andinnovationsupporttoEuropeanfoodmanufacturersinthetraditionalfoodarea.Eachisfocusedondifferentsectors,withTRADEITfocusingonbakery,meatanddairyproducts,whereasitssisterproject(i.e.TRAFOON)on fish, grain, vegetable, mushroom and olive products1. In particular, the SRIA of the TRADEIT projectfocused on traditional food SMEs. In this respect, the term SME is somewhat of a misnomer as thesecompanies aremoreoften thannotmicro enterprises, averaging3 employees. It is quitedifficult (if notimpossible) to have a significant internal structure with 3 employees and with the owner dealing withmanagement,salesanddistribution,theremaybeonly2productionemployees.AssuchandgiventhattheseSMEsareoftenfamilyenterprises,scientificexpertisemaybenon-existent.

Withtheaboveinmind,theTRADEITprojectfacedseveralproblemswhenembarkingonitsdatagatheringexercise,aimedatdevelopingitsSRIA.Morespecifically,theprocesstypicallyemployedtogenerateSRIAsistoformvariousworkinggroupsofrelevantscientistsfromacademiaandindustryandusebrain-stormingtechniques to develop lists of urgent research topics. While this process is useful, it comes with thedisadvantage of not distinguishing between the urgent research needs of the industry and the currentresearchwishesof academic researchers.Moreover, even if theTRADEITprojectopted toutlilise suchaprocess, the industry-based scientists were largely non-existent so the skewing of priorities towardsacademiawould have beenmore pronounced. Consequently, an early TRADEIT decisionwas to interactdirectlywithfoodSMEsintheframeworkof itsdatagatheringexercise.AsTRADEITwasorganisedinto9regionalhubsaroundEurope,averysuccessfulsurveywasundertakenamongsttheseveralhundredSMEsinfocus.Inaddition,face-to-facemeetingswereheldwithasmallerselectionofSMEs.

Fromthedatagatheringexerciseitbecameapparentthat,unlesstheSMEwasencounteringaveryspecifictechnologicalproblem, little thoughtwasgiventospecific researchneeds inmanyregions. Indeed,whilemost wished to expand their businesses and engage in product innovation, there were several barrierspreventingthemfromdoingso,including(i)lackoftimeforadequateinnovation;(ii)difficultiesofaccesstofinance for innovation; (iii) unsuitable size and cost of newprocessing equipment for delivering productinnovations;(iv)problemsencounteredincreatingadequatedistributionnetworks;and(v)lackofinnovationawareness.Moreover,itwasevidentthattheneedsofSMEswereasmuchinthehumanandorganisationalsciencesasinfoodscienceandtechnology.Nevertheless,noneofthesefindingsareremarkable.Withsuchsmallenterprises,theproblemsofday-to-dayrunningdominatethecompanyattheexpenseofinnovationactivities;howcananenterprisewithoutscientificexpertiseaccessthelatestdevelopments.

InthiscontextandeventhoughthereareawiderangeofscientificneedsandbarrierslistedintheSRIAoftheTRADEITproject,thisreportconcentratesonthosedeficienciesthatrequireinnovationadviceandthemeansbywhichitmaybedelivered,asfollows.

Lack of time for adequate innovation

While this is almost self-explanatory, itmust be remembered that this SRIAdealswith very small SMEs,mostlybelowthemeansizeofEuropeanfoodenterpriseswhichisaround10to12employeesdependingonthestatisticsusedinitscalculation.Indeed,themajorityoftheSMEsintheTRADEITnetworkwerewellbelowthissizeandweremostlyfamily-basedartisanenterprisesofabout5employees.Themanagementfunctionisgenerallyapart-timeactivityofonepersonwhoseotheractivitiesareproduction,marketing,distribution,accounting,etc.

1TheStrategicResearchandInnovationAgendaoftheTRAFOONprojectwasnotcompletedbythetimethisreporthasbeenelaboratedandthereforeisnotincludedintheanalysis.


Difficulties of access to finance for innovation

Whilethisisverydefinitelyabarriertoinnovation,itisnotstrictlyaresearchneed.However,thereisaneedforresearchtodeterminetheoptimumsupportthatcouldbeputinplaceforverysmallSMEs.Suchasupportpackageneednotbelimitedtofinancialmattersbutcancoverorganisationalsupport,managementsupport,external skills provision, etc. It is alsoprobable that supports shoulddiffer by county and region andbeintegratedwithothernationalandEU-widesupportsystems.

The unsuitable size and cost of new processing equipment for delivering product innovations

ThiswasanalmostuniversaltopicraisedbyeverySMEintheTRADEITdatacollectionnetwork.Arecurringthemewastheabsenceofprocessingequipmentintherangebetweenpilot-scaleandverylargeindustrialscale.Thiswascompoundedbythecostissuewhere,evenwheresuitablesizeequipmentexisted,thehighcapital cost couldnotbe justifiedwithin theeconomiesof theSME.Particularlyproblematicwascuttingequipmentforcheeseandsausage/chorizostylemeatproducts,packaging/fillingmachinesforcheese,meat,breadandotherproducts,curingsystemsformeatproductsandmixers,proversandovensinthebakerysector.

In this respect, one solution thatwas suggestedmany timesduring thedata collection exercisewas thepossibilityofclusteringofsmallSMEs(eithergeographicallyorvirtually)withinaregionsothattime-sharejoint equipment couldbeoperated. This could simultaneously alleviate theequipment capacity and costissues.However,significantresearchwillbenecessarytocomeupwithasuitablerangeoforganisationalconcepts.IthasbeensuggestedthatonesuchclusteringmodelcoulddevelopasanewSMEco-operativemodelwhileithasalsobeensuggestedthataclusteringsolutioncouldbepartofpost-recessiontowncentreregenerationprocesses.

Problems in creating adequate distribution networks

Distributionsystemswerenotedasproblematicformanyinnovation-drivenexpansions.SincethemajorityofthesmallSMEsusedrelativelyshortdistanceregionaldistribution,expansiontonationallevelorbeyondwouldrequireeitheraproductreformulationtoextenditsshelf-lifeorachangeinthedistributionsystemtoachieveasimilarobjective(e.g.amovefromambienttolowtemperaturedistribution).

The problem of innovation awareness

Innovationawarenessisaproblemthatiscompoundedbythetimeissueoutlinedabove.Timeconstraintsmilitate against attendance at trade shows and seminars that would raise awareness of innovationpossibilities.Inaddition,thereisverylittlein-housescientificexpertiseinthesecompaniessoscanningthescientificliteratureisnotanoption.However,therearesomeeffortsbeingmadetoovercomethisawarenessissue. For instance, the e-magazine, Taste of Science, whichwas launched through the TRADEIT projecttranslatespromisingscientificinnovationsintoalanguagethatiseasilyunderstoodbythenon-scientificfoodbusinessmanager.TheTRADEITprojecthasalsosetupamarketplacewhere foodbusinessescanaccessscientific support either from each other or from third parties. In parallel, another initiative,Connect2Innovate, which constitutes a post-project continuation of the FP7 project Connect4Action iscontinuingtheinteractionbetweenfoodscientistsandconsumerscientistsoastominimisethepossibilityofinnovationfailurethatissocommonwithfoodproducts.

Business skills deficiencies

Alistofthebusinessandpersonaldeficienciesaswellasissuespertainingtoproduct/process/packagingasgatheredfromthebakery,dairyandmeatSMEsintheframeofthedevelopmentoftheTRADEITproject’sSRIAisprovidedfurtherbelowalongwithpotentialsolutions.Overall,mostofthemareself-explanatoryandcould be solved, at least in part, by the creation of new training programmes, innovation guidance


programmesandotherlocal/regionalmeasures.ItisalsoprobablethatsolutionscouldbefoundwithinthefoodSMEclustering/co-operativeprocessmentionedearlierinthissection.

• BusinessandPersonalskills

o GrowthManagement:Mostfoodentrepreneurshavesuccessfullysetuptheirbusinessbasedona product concept or set up as a family initiative. However, growth management is not aninherently intuitiveskillandmanySMEsdonotsurvivesuchaprocess,oftenbecauseofskillsdeficiencies incostcontrolandmarketingresearch.Arobustsystemof local/regionaltrainingsupportandguidancethroughtheinnovationprocessisessentialformanycompanies.

o PersonalDevelopment:ThepersonaldevelopmentoftheSMEowner/manager isanessentialpartoftheexerciseandcanberegardedasextensionofthegrowthmanagementproblem.Thesametrainingprogrammesandinnovationguidancecanassistinthisissue.

o Lack of skilledworkers; Lack of technical personnel: These allied issues aremore difficult toovercomeintheshort-termastheirsolutionmaylieintheeducationalpoliciesoftheregion.Intime,suchpoliciescanovercometheskilledworkerdeficiencies.However,short-termtrainingprogrammesfornewemployeesinfoodindustryissues(e.g.hygiene,foodhandling,processingandpackaging,etc.)aremorelikelytoleadtofasterinnovationsuccess.Suchbasictrainingcanbeofferedbyappropriatepublicbodiesandbytheinnovationguidanceorganisationsmentionedabove.

o Lackofcapital /access to investment:While therearemanyshort-termsolutions thatcanbesuggested,longer-termpolicychangeswithinthefinancialsectorwillbenecessaryforanoverallsolution.

o Poormarketingskills;Lackofinformationaboutnewmarkets;Internationalization:WhilemostfoodSMEshaveagoodknowledgeoftheir localmarketandhavetheskills to introducenewproducts into that market, when more distant markets are considered, they immediatelyexperiencedifficulties.Manyhaveunrealisticviewsofsuchdistantmarketsanddonothavetheskills to undertake effective market and consumer research. In addition, while most willacknowledge the need for market research, it often has a low priority in their financialcommitments.

• Product/process/packagingissues

o Raw Materials Costs; How to manage costs: These issues remain a significant inhibitor toinnovationand,inparticular,tosuccessfulproductinnovation.

o Increasedshelflife:DuringthesurveyprocessimplementedintheframeoftheTRADEITproject,allsurveyedSMEsexpressedawishtoextendtheshelf-lifeoftheirproductsoastofacilitatethedistributionprocess.Most considered that thiswasapackagingobjectivebutbecauseof thetraditionalnatureoftheirproduct,therewaslittleenthusiasmforachievingthisbychangesinproduct formulation unless the change had implied health benefits (e.g. salt and/or fatreduction).

o No knowledge of new techniques; Lack of access to external knowledge; The need for newtechnologiesandnewproducts;Lackofadoptionofnewtechnologies:ThisemergesasaverycommonbutquitediversesetofissuesthatcouldgiverisetomostoftheclassicalfoodscienceandtechnologythatwillarisefromtheTRADEITproject’sSRIAandwhichbrings itsoutcomesclosertothosecommonlyfoundinotherrecentlypublishedSRIAs.

o Lowerenergy:ThisisbothasustainabilityandacostissuethatisuniversalacrosstherelativelysmallerfoodSMEs.

o Packaging;Noknowledgeonnewpackagingsolutions:Asoutlinedabove,manySMEsregardedpackagingdevelopmentsasbeing important toshelf-life.Mostwereawareof theconceptof


activeandintelligentpackagingbutwereunsureofwhatitcoulddoforthem.Inmanycases,packagingdevelopmentswereamajorinnovationinhibitor,largelyduetocost.Inaddition,thesustainabilityofpackagingwasanissueformanySMEsastraditionalartisanproductsoftenhavean implicit sustainability image. In themeat industry, the supply of natural edible packagingmaterialsisanissue(e.g.sausage/chorizocasings).

o Labelling;Dealingwithregulations:ThiswasthemostfrequentinnovationinhibitormentionedbyfoodSMEsduringthesurveyprocessemployedforthedevelopmentoftheTRADEITproject’sSRIA. Issues included (i) the frequency of changes in labelling regulations; (ii) differences inregulationsortheir interpretationbetweengeographicalareas;(iii)thecostsof implementingfrequentlabellingregulationchanges;(iv)difficultiesinlabeldesigntoincorporateanincreasingrangeofinformation;(v)and,mostcommonofall,thedifficultyofimplementingchangesinaverysmallcompanywithouttheexpertiseortheavailabletimeforsuchimplementation.

o Lackofrapidanalysisequipment.

o Lackofexpertiseindevelopingnewproductsandinby-productvalorisation.

o Dealingwithallergens.

4.5 Conclusions for the Food sector TheinsightscollectedthroughthereviewofrelevantdocumentswhichfocusontheFoodsectorindicatethattherespectivepartoftheagri-foodvaluechaininEuropeisnotwell-structuredanddominatedbymainlymicro-sizedSMEs.Furthermore,majorbarrierstoinnovationappeartoexistforSMEsinthesectorwiththeprimaryofthembeing:

• Lackofbusinessskills:Therearemajordeficienciesrightacrosstherangeofbusinessskillsthatarenecessaryforsuccessfulinnovation.

• Difficultiesinaccessingscientificknowledge:Itisalsoclearthatthelackofscientificexpertiseinthissectorinhibitsitsabilitytoinnovate.

• Need for enhanced training and development units at a local level, equipped with a range ofmediatorsthatwillguideSMEsthroughtheinnovationprocess:Whiletheseareneededinallregions,noconcreteconclusioncanbedrawnwithrespecttowhetherthesamemodelwillbesuitedtoallregions.

Economic restraints aswell as the largenumberofmicro SMEswithin the Food sectormayprevent thedeliveryoftheaforementionedinperson.Underthislight,solutionsthatwilleffectivelyleverageICTwillbeessential if themore ambitious of the Food SMEs are to be guided successfully through the innovationprocess.


5. Interviews with Advisory and Beneficiaries Boards’ members

Intheframeworkoftheagri-foodvaluechainanalysis,atotalof12interviewswereconductedwithmembersofboththeAdvisoryaswellastheBeneficiariesBoardofINNO-4-AGRIFOODproject.Thegoalwastogaininsight into the needs of SMEs with respect to innovation support and the opportunities for onlinecollaborationforinnovationfromtheirownperspective.TheAdvisoryBoardofINNO-4-AGRIFOODisasmallgroupofselectedexpertsoftheAgri-foodEcosystem,includingtechnologyandinnovationproviders,withknowledgeandexperienceontheinnovationneedsandproblemsthatagri-foodSMEsarecurrentlyfacing.TheBeneficiariesBoardofINNO-4-AGRIFOODiscomprisedofrepresentativesofleadingorganisationswithintheAgri-foodEcosystem,includingassociationsofSMEs,LargeEnterprisesandFarmers,Agri-foodSocieties,Clusters,Forums,Initiatives,CentresofExcellence,etc.,atnational,EUandgloballevel.Withthatinmind,intervieweeswerealsoaskedfortheirviewsononlinecollaborationwithintheagri-foodvaluechainandhow their organizations engage in online collaboration based on their experience. All interviews wereconductedintheformofaguided,semi-structureddiscussion.Thisapproachenabledtheinterviewerstomaintainthescopeoftheinterviewbroadenoughtocapturepotentiallyunforeseenopinionsandideasonrelevantaspectsofonlinecollaborationforinnovation.

ThesectionswhichfollowwithinthisChapterpresenttheresultsoftheinterviews.Thequestionnairethatwasutilisedtocapturetheresponsesoftheintervieweesisannexedthisreport.

5.1 How do they see online collaboration within the agri-food value chain? Are their organizations active in online collaboration and how? TheresponsescollectedthroughtheinterviewsindicatethatsomeoftheBoardmembersarealreadyutilisingandbenefitingfromonlinecollaboration,astheyareinvolvedintheICTsector.Infact,fortheseorganizationsonlinecollaborationisinevitablejustasonlinecommunication.Onlinecollaborationtoolsthatareusedbytheseorganizationsinclude,amongothers,cloud-basedstorage,intranetportals,fileprocessingcapacities,etc.Still,itappearsthattherearealsoorganizationsthatarenotawareofonlinecollaborationplatformsastheyoperateinthe“traditional”agri-foodsector.Collaborationaccordingtotheseboardmembersmostlytakesplaceviaface-2-facemeetings.However,theuseofsocialmediaissomethingthatisconsideredasawayofonlinecollaborationandisusedbyactiveSMEsinthesectortogetintouchwithconsumersand/orpromotetheiractivities.Overall,Boardmembersseepotential inenhancingonlinecollaboration,orhaveSMEsatleaststartconsideringonlinecollaborationtosimulateinnovation.

5.2 What are their experiences with agri-food SMEs collaborating online? Itappearsthatthemajorityofthe interviewedBoardmembershavenoexperienceswithagri-foodvaluechainSMEscollaboratingonline.However,thereafewBoardmembersdidindicatethattheyareawareofagri-foodcontextsinwhichonlinecollaborationisutilised,suchase-shopsthatallowsmallfarmerstoselltofinal customers,oragri-food initiatives suchas theFRACTALSproject.Most importantly,however,Boardmembersseemtoagreethatthereissignificantpotentialforenhancingtheuseofonlinecollaboration.

5.3 Where does online collaboration happen? Severalexamplesofplatformsandtoolsthroughwhichonlinecollaborationcantakeplacewerementionedduring the interviews. In particular, these include onlinementoring platforms, Trello,GoogleDocs, SlideShare,Dropbox,FIWAREtoolsandevenFacebook.


5.4 What are the requests and offers of agri-food value chain participants? ThequalitativedatathatwerecollectedfromBoardmembersduringtheinterviewspinpointtowardsthefollowingrequestsandoffersofcompaniesactiveacrosstheagri-foodvaluechain:

• Facilitationoftradeandexchangeofresources.

• Informationdissemination.

• Visibilityincrease.

• Cooperationwithdifferentpointsofthevaluechain.

• Farmmanagement.

In this respect, it is important to note that the abovementioned tiewell into the topics that have beenidentifiedwithintheStrategicResearchandInnovationAgendaspresentedinChapters3and4ofthisreport.

5.5 With whom SMEs are cooperating online and for what reason(s)? BoardmemberswhowereinterviewedandwereawareofSMEswhicharecooperatingonline,mentionedvariousexamplesofrelevantcollaborationpartnersandrespectivedrivers,including:

• ICTandtradingcompaniestofacilitatethesaleoftheirproducts.

• Bigmarketchainsaimedatenhancingtheirsales.

• Supportorganizationsfornetworkingandacquiringprojectassistance.

• OthersimilarSMEstopursuecommongoalsandexchangeknowledge.

• Theresearchcommunityforassistanceininnovationanddevelopment.

• Governmentagenciesforsupport,facilitationandlobbying.

Still,someoftheintervieweespointedoutthattheyhavenoknowledgeofSMEscollaboratingonline,orthatstillthereisnocommonpracticeinthefield,noteveninnarrowareassuchasmachineryvendors.

5.6 For what are SMEs using online tools? The findings from the interviews with members of the Advisory and Beneficiaries Boards of INNO-4-AGRIFOOD, indicate that the principal reasons which drive SMEs to utilise online tools are to sell theirproductsandinteractwiththeircustomers.

5.7 What are their expectations with respect to online collaboration? Basedontheinterviewees,onlinecollaborationhasjuststartedtowidelyspreadacrossalllevelsandsizesofSMEsintheagri-foodvaluechain.Infact,theyexpectthatitwillbecomeaprevalentformofcollaboration,primarily but only because it “makes the world smaller” and facilitates much better and fastercommunication.

5.8 Conclusions from the interviews TheinsightsderivedfromtheinterviewswithAdvisoryandBeneficiariesBoards’membersclearlyindicatethatonlinecollaboration,atthemoment,isnotutilizedatitsfullestpotentialandmanySMEactorsarenotyetactivelyengagedinsupportingorenhancingonlinecollaboration.Still,therearemanychallengesfaced


byagri-foodSMEsforwhichtheyneedtocollaboratewithpotentialtechnologyandknowledgeproviders.Withthisinmind,thepotentialbenefitsofonlinecollaborationintermsofenhancingtheinnovationcapacityofSMESintheagri-foodvaluechainandaddressingtheirresearchandinnovationneedsbecomeevident.Inthisrespect,theroleofinnovationintermediatessuchastheEnterpriseEuropeNetworkaswellasthatofSMEsclustersandotherkeystakeholders(e.g.NationalFoodTechnologyPlatformsandETPs)isessential.


Annex

QuestionnaireQ1:Howdoyouseeonlinecollaborationwithinagri-foodvaluechain?Areyourorganizationsactivewithonlinecollaborationandhow?

Q2:Whatisyourexperiencewithagri-foodvaluechainSMEscollaboratingonline?

Q3:Ifthereisonlinecollaboration,wheredoesithappen(whichplatforms,tools,etc.)?

Q4:Whatistherequestandoffergoingaroundwithinagri-foodvaluechainparticipants?

Q5:WithwhomSMEsarecooperatingonlineandforwhatreason(s)?


Q6:Forwhataretheyusingtheonlinetools?

Q7:Whatareyourexpectationswithregardtoonlinecollaborationgoingforward?

AnyothercommentyouwanttosharewiththeINNO-4-AGRIFOODprojectteam?

agri-food value chain analysis report · agri-food value chain analysis report – august, 2016...

Documents