EIP-AGRI Seminar 'Launching Operational Groups and EIP-AGRI networking in rural development programmes' FACILITATORS’ REPORT 18-19 November 2014

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

3

Table of contents

Overview of the Meeting ............................................................................................................................ 4

Presentations and results of break-out groups ............................................................................................. 5

Day 1: Tuesday, 18 November - How to organise an effective call for Operational Group projects? ................ 5

Break-out Group 1: From setting up an OG to the application for project funding ................................... 5

Break-out Group 2: Application for OG project funding: who and how to co-operate? ............................. 6

Break-out Group 3: How to encourage the optimum mix of partners in an OG project? ........................... 8

Break-out Group 4: Combining targeted project calls with capturing grass-roots ideas ........................... 9

Break-out Group 5: Innovation in the EIP-AGRI - how to use selection criteria to foster it? ................... 10

Day 2: Wednesday, 19 November - How to organise EIP-AGRI networking at national/regional level – including

effective links to ISSs and advisory services with a focus on innovation? ..................................................... 11

Break-out Group 6: Ensuring the effective dissemination of results ...................................................... 11

Break-out Groups 7 and 8: How to organise EIP-AGRI networking at national/regional level? ................ 13

Break-out Group 9: Innovation brokering and support: what, who, how, when, where…? ..................... 14

Break-out Group 10: Free discussion .................................................................................................. 15

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

4

Overview of the Meeting With preparations for the programming of the EIP-AGRI now drawing to a conclusion in most Member States

(MS), DG Agriculture and Rural Development invited national/regional Managing Authorities to Brussels, Belgium, on 18 – 19 November 2014 to participate in a technical seminar on ‘Launching Operational Groups and

EIP-AGRI Networking in Rural Development Programmes’. This was a follow-up to previous technical seminars

held in Madrid, Spain (June 2013) and Berlin, Germany (November 2013), as well as five regional workshops organised in 2014.

The seminar in Brussels aimed to address a range of practical issues relating to the launching of effective calls

for Operational Groups (OGs), as well as the organisation of EIP-AGRI networking for innovation support services (ISS) and other advisers with a focus upon innovation. The seminar also had the following specific objectives:

To develop a common understanding of the possibilities offered by European Union (EU) legislation for

calls for OG projects and networking/innovation support services; To promote the exchange of ideas and initial experiences between the participating Managing Authorities

(MAs) regarding calls for OG projects and networking/innovation support services;

To address specific technical issues that individual MAs presented during the seminar.

The meeting kicked-off with a welcome from Mihail Dumitru, Deputy Director General DG Agriculture and Rural

Development, followed by a clear and comprehensive overview from Inge van Oost (DG AGRI) of the legal

framework and guidelines for Operational Groups and networking. Ms. Van Oost’s presentation made specific reference to both the updated Guidelines on Programming for Innovation and the Implementation of the EIP-

AGRI for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability and the Questions & Answers on EIP-AGRI guidelines presented to the Rural Development Committee (RDC). Her presentation also linked to the break-out groups

that followed on the two specific themes of:

1. How to organise an effective call for Operational Group projects (including legal framework and guidelines

for OGs and networking); 2. How to organise EIP-AGRI networking at national/regional level with effective links to innovation support

services and advisory services with a focus on innovation.

A novel feature of the seminar was that the open questions generated in previous regional workshops were

“fed-forward” to the Brussels meeting to provide a framework for 10 break-out discussions during which the participants worked in smaller groups to share their experiences and ideas regarding a range of key practical

issues. These included the practicalities of setting up Operational Groups, encouraging the optimum mix of partners in an Operational Group, using selection criteria to foster innovation and ensuring the effective

dissemination of results from Operational Group projects.

Overall, the seminar was further enhanced by the presentation of relevant practical examples from 7 Member

States (see below).

At the end of the seminar Aldo Longo, Director H ‘General Aspects of Rural Development and Research’, at DG Agriculture and Rural Development, told participants: “It is clear from our discussions that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach. Still, no matter your individual strategies, some points seem important to consider for call preparation: timing, promotion, costs, management of applications, beneficiaries, eligibility and selection criteria, and dissemination… It is of utmost importance to create the right support environment for Operational Groups, both in the animation phase, and for the group setting-up itself.”

Click here for information about the seminar, including all presentations and supporting documents.

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

5

Presentations and results of break-out groups

Day 1: Tuesday, 18 November - How to organise an effective call for Operational Group projects?

The first main session of the seminar focussed on the question of how to organise an effective call for

Operational Group projects. An ‘effective call’ in this context was introduced as meaning:

Capturing grassroots ideas and initiatives;

Helping to make their ‘innovation potential’ as visible as possible for the purposes of selection/funding.

Reaching the potential beneficiaries of the call;

Motivating the potential beneficiaries of the call;

Communicating sufficient information for potential beneficiaries to respond to the call;

Building upon the work of the innovation support services.

The session opened with presentations from four Member States on contrasting national/regional approaches, including:

The Swedish approach – presented by Inger Pehrson, Coordinator of the National EIP-AGRI Network in

Sweden

The Finnish approach – presented by Sirpa Karjalainen, Ministerial Adviser in the Ministry of Agriculture

and Forestry of Finland

The Austrian approach – presented by Gerhard Pretterhofer, EIP-AGRI Co-ordinator Federal Ministry of

Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management of Austria The Catalonian approach - presented by Jaume Sió Torres, Deputy Director of Innovation in the

Department of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, Food and Natural Environment of the Catalan Government,

Spain

The participants then divided into 5 break-out groups to continue a series of discussions that were inspired by

the Member State presentations, informed by the opening overview from Inge Van Oost and guided by the set of pre-defined themes/questions from the 2014 regional workshops.

Break-out Group 1: From setting up an OG to the application for project funding Proposed questions for the group

• Should applications for the setting-up of an OG be connected with applications for project funding?

• How can innovation brokering work? • What is the basic content of an application form for setting up support for an OG, for a project plan

template, for a co-operation agreement etc.?

• Can we simplify the application process with the simplified cost system? • How much could setting up support cost, any ceilings?

• Should calls be permanently open or periodic?

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

6

• How far in advance to announce calls for setting up/project funding?

• How best to promote applications for setting up?

Conclusions/Recommendations

A total of 21 draft RDPs were represented in the group (9 national and 12 regional), of which 5 programmes

were implementing the two-step approach.

It was understood by participants that the two step approach was not an obligation, but there was uncertainty

in the group about whether a preliminary ’setting-up phase’ (step 1) was a good idea or not. The ensuing discussion therefore mainly focussed on reviewing the perceived advantages and disadvantages of a setting-up

phase:

Discussed

advantages of the setting-up phase

Short and simple application -> with a clear and quick yes/no answer The ‘barrier’ for entry to the EIP-AGRI is lower – a separate setting-up phase is

more user-friendly for farmers and risks are limited Cost of setting-up is eligible – not linked with project proposal and not claimed

retrospectively, thereby avoiding problems with Art. 60(2) MA can check project proposal earlier – therefore possible to target institutional

support (if necessary) Lump sum is simpler for applicant and administration, as well as safer for audit

purposes Steps 1 and 2 do not need to build on each other, therefore it can be more

flexible for potential groups (e.g. composition of group can change between step 1 and 2)

Discussed

disadvantages of the setting-up phase

More complex for groups More time-consuming for groups Needs clarification about what costs are eligible Needs better definition of the output of step 1 Correct use of lump sum needs to be assured Lump sum does not reflect the diversity of different processes and costs

associated with setting-up an OG (e.g. small groups with simple projects require less support than large groups with more complex projects)

There is a lack of clear guidance on step 1

Open questions remaining after the discussion

What are the most appropriate tools for supporting step 1?

How are successful proposals supported from step 1 to step 2?

What are the state aid implications (budget and eligibility) regarding steps 1 and 2?

Break-out Group 2: Application for OG project funding: who and how to co-operate?

Proposed questions for the group

Should applications for the setting-up of an OG be connected with applications for project funding?

What is the basic content of an application form for support for an OG project, for a project plan template,

for a co-operation agreement etc.? How to tackle requests for changes after the start of the project?

Are all co-operation projects also OGs?

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

7

Should there be a ceiling on support and duration of projects?

Should calls be permanently open or periodic?

How far in advance to announce calls for project funding?

How best to promote applications for projects?

Conclusions/Recommendations

The following questions were discussed:

Should applications for the setting-up

of an OG be connected with applications for project funding?

There are different approaches to the use of sub-measures 16.1 and 16.2, although the EIP-AGRI guidelines now clearly say that 16.1 can be used for setting up OGs, running OGs and OG project costs Can an OG implement more than one project? Can one large project consist of several smaller sub-projects (e.g. with different funding?) What about guidelines for private funding? General concern that existing networks/partnerships will absorb all funds – how to encourage new actors into OGs and the EIP-AGRI? Not clear how OGs can co-operate with H2020

What is the basic content of an

application form for support for an OG project, for a project plan

template, for a co-operation

agreement etc.?

Questions about where funds go and who has final responsibility for outputs and distribution of funds? Lead partner or individual group members? Is the OG best formed as a legal entity to avoid legal problems? These issues must be clear for auditing etc. More advice/guidance needed It would be good to exchange ideas about these documents – maybe to translate examples and distribute. At least one MA has drafts they are willing to share

How to tackle requests for changes

after the start of the project?

Different approaches were discussed including a standard ‘request for change’ form. Do changes need to be notified/requested if the goals of the project will still be reached and there are no budgetary implications?

Are all co-operation projects also

OGs?

No – OGs are characterised by their innovative approach. Not all co-operation projects (e.g. some supply chain projects) share these characteristics as some co-operation approaches are limited to copying an existing process/method without any adaption needed

Should calls be permanently open or

periodic?

Agreed that it was good practice to have calls permanently open with 2-4 periods of evaluation per year

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

8

Break-out Group 3: How to encourage the optimum mix of partners in an OG project? Proposed questions for the group

How to encourage/incentivise an optimum ’mix’ of partners applying for project funding?

What role for innovation support services/advisory services in OG projects?

Is there a need for obligatory partner types e.g. at least one farmer or one researcher?

Who should facilitate or co-ordinate an OG project?

What is the minimum requirement for a co-operation agreement for an OG? What could a template look

like?

Should an OG be a legal entity?

In case of private co-financing, how to guarantee open dissemination?

Conclusions/Recommendations

The following questions were discussed:

How to encourage/incentivise an

optimum ‘mix’ of partners applying for project funding?

Depends on the type of problem to be addressed by the OG The starting point for the OG’s ‘mix’ of partners is the

topic/issue behind the needs from farmers/problem Try to organise complementary knowledge Actors need to have an interest and motivation – this can be a

shared interest, but with different perspectives Build from the EIP-AGRI Regional Workshops on OGs Involve people from different sectors –look more broadly than

usual

What role for innovation support services/advisory services in OG

projects?

Help to get the optimum ’mix’ of partners (as above) through their network

Important for knowledge transfer Scan if a problem already has a solution Support relevant processes - facilitate, not lead Ensure everyone is ‘speaking the same language’

Who should facilitate or co-ordinate an OG project?

Preferably the ’owner’ of the challenge Researchers may naturally take the lead, but not everyone in

favour of this

Should an OG be a legal entity?

Leave this question open – a good partnership agreement is the only critical issue to be ensured

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

9

Break-out Group 4: Combining targeted project calls with capturing grass-roots ideas (including cross-border OGs) Proposed questions for the group

Thematic calls versus un-prioritised calls: how best to capture grass-roots ideas and initiatives whilst also

targeting EIP-AGRI aims and RDP priorities/focus areas?

What is the role of selection criteria in fine-tuning the targeting of calls?

How can the different elements of ’innovation potential’ be assessed with clearly defined selection criteria?

Is it useful to target different sizes of OGs e.g. a few large OGs or many small OGs?

How to manage proposals for cross-border Operational Groups and which options to offer? (section 4.5 of

guidelines)

Should cross-border Operational Groups be actively promoted?

Conclusions/Recommendations

The following questions were discussed:

Thematic calls versus un-prioritised calls: how best to capture grass-roots

ideas and initiatives whilst also targeting EIP-AGRI aims and RDP

priorities/focus areas?

A mix of thematic and unprioritised calls is most preferred, but should acknowledge that both approaches have their specific advantages: Thematic calls –coherence with RDP priorities, but must ensure

that themes are not too narrow Open calls - broader potential to capture grass-roots innovation Can use ’expressions of interest’ to filter preliminary ideas for projects/OGs

What is the role of selection criteria in

fine-tuning the targeting of calls?

Selection criteria are clearly important for targeting, but they must be balanced (environmental, economic, social)

Is it useful to target different sizes of

OGs e.g. a few large OGs or many

small OGs?

No specific conclusions to this question. Size of OGs will be very much linked with themes, situation, internal approaches, scope of work etc. Maybe there should be a minimum budget to balance high administrative burden/costs with project activities

How to manage proposals for cross-border Operational Groups and which

options to offer? (section 4.5 of guidelines)

Many different options discussed. Key factor is good co-operation among Member States/regions, specifically the MAs involved. Can use existing networking platforms - or maybe create a new platform at EU level

Should cross-border Operational Groups be actively promoted?

Yes, overall this would be very positive, although there are questions about how to manage the audit trail. One solution may be good co-operation agreements between the OG and MAs involved

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

10

Break-out Group 5: Innovation in the EIP-AGRI - how to use selection criteria to foster it? Proposed questions for the group

What are the elements of ’innovation potential’ (e.g. a new idea + potential for practical application +

potential for wide-scale uptake)?

What exactly is a ‘new idea’? What about the adaptation and improvement of existing ideas?

How can the different elements of ‘innovation potential’ be assessed with clearly defined selection criteria?

What further questions need to be asked in the project application form? What do applicants need to

explain to merit selection?

What weight to give to the different selection criteria?

Is it important to have a selection committee (independent experts) for assessing project proposals? What

should be the profile of members in the committee?

Conclusions/Recommendations

The following questions were discussed:

What are the elements of ‘innovation

potential’ (e.g. a new idea + potential for practical application + potential

for wide-scale uptake)?

Do not use the word ‘innovation’ in the selection criteria because different people will understand it differently

Keep the concept of innovation potential as simple and practical as possible: translate into operational criteria

Innovation is very complex. Look at different factors. Expert committees can be set-up to assess the selection criteria

What exactly is a ‘new idea’? What about the adaptation and

improvement of existing ideas?

A ‘new idea’ should be focused on tackling a concrete problem – and also on opportunities

Evaluate the potential of the ‘new idea’ and keep an open mind to opportunities

There may be regional priorities

How can the different elements of ‘innovation potential’ be assessed

with clearly defined selection criteria?

Committees in some cases will involve companies. In other cases a broad and shallow approach can be used to try and capture as many ideas as possible.

Take account of the quality of OG members. Score the co-operation itself, in particular the complementary mix of the group

Consider the impact of OG results? It can be scored Extra points can be given for cross-sectorial OGs when persons

from other sectors can help the group to have better results Climate and environmental issues are high priorities Proportionality of the projects

What further questions need to be

asked in the project application form? What do applicants need to explain to

merit selection? What weight to give

to the different selection criteria?

Evaluate the background of each member in the OG Different types of innovation (technological, social,

organisational) should be treated equally

Is it important to have a selection

committee (independent experts) for assessing project proposals? What

Call for experts to support selection of project proposal. Maintain a pool of experts (e.g. organised by the NRN) with individual experts used for specific topics

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

11

should be the profile of members in

the committee?

Use existing expert groups where appropriate, but be careful to ensure their advice is independent

How to assess the potential impact of projects during selection?

How to assess the potential to disseminate from the start of the project?

Day 2: Wednesday, 19 November - How to organise EIP-AGRI networking at national/regional level – including effective links to ISSs and advisory services with a focus on innovation?

Day 2 of the seminar kicked off with a spirited presentation by Meisoon Nasralla (DG AGRI) of the on-line content

and interactive functions of the newly-launched EIP-AGRI website. Seminar participants were encouraged to register on the website and start searching its contents immediately!

The second main session of the seminar focussed on the question of how to organise EIP-AGRI networking at

national/regional level with effective links to innovation support services (ISS) and advisory services with a focus

on innovation. Participants were reminded again that:

’Fostering innovation’ is a new objective for National Rural Networks (NRNs) in 2014-2020 with a specific

obligation to provide “networking for advisers and innovation support services” (Article 54, EC Reg.

1305/2013);

In some Member States there are existing platforms/networks that can be used to support EIP-AGRI

implementation; There is no obligation for Member States to create a specialised innovation or EIP-AGRI network at

national level, but it may be efficient to do so

The session opened with three presentations of innovation networking examples:

The German EIP-AGRI network – presented by Bettina Rocha from the German Rural Network Unit

(Deutsche Vernetzungsstelle Ländliche Räume, DVS) in the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food,

Germany

The Agricultural Advisory Service and EIP-AGRI Network in Poland – presented by Marek

Krysztoforski on behalf of Henryk Skórnicki, Director of the Agricultural Advisory Centre in Brwinów, Poland

The Duchy Originals Future Farming Programme (an independent innovation support service) –

presented by Tom MacMillan, Director of Innovation at the Soil Association, UK

Break-out Group 6: Ensuring the effective dissemination of results

Proposed questions for the group

What specific obligations for dissemination of results should be included in the call? How to use

dissemination potential in selection criteria? How to encourage Operational Groups to structure themselves to promote dissemination of their results

(e.g. inclusion of an advisory partner)?

How to use the common format for reporting? (‘practice abstract’ in the Annex of the EIP-AGRI

guidelines)

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

12

What exactly is the ‘result’ of a project?

Lessons learnt from projects not delivering as expected: how to deal with it?

Which dissemination channels are most useful?

Conclusions/Recommendations

The following questions were discussed:

What specific obligations for

dissemination of results should be included in the call? How to use

dissemination potential in selection

criteria?

There is a need to have a new approach. What actually is ‘dissemination’ - results need to be both useful and used

It is an important criteria in the call and the selection

How to encourage Operational

Groups to structure themselves to promote dissemination of their results

(e.g. inclusion of an advisory partner)?

Involvement of adviser – need to show advisory activity Strategy for dissemination part of the application Viability on the market (need to involve the industry?) How to check the dissemination? Final report? Add on-going

milestone checks? What kind of indicators? Tailor made dissemination based on the project needs and

needs of audience

How to use the common format for reporting? (‘practice abstract’ in the

Annex of the EIP-AGRI guidelines)

The ‘practice abstract’ is needed, but it is not the only product needed – the abstract is not enough

What other information is required? Establish quality instruments to evaluate the projects How do you define the effectiveness of dissemination in the

RDPs?

What exactly is the ‘result’ of a project?

Approach for intellectual property rights is the same as the legal reference for the research policy

If a project fails, then the results should still be disseminated because there are lessons to be learned.

Which dissemination channels are most useful?

Channels used for dissemination can be different depending on the dissemination needs that are identified in the dissemination plan

Role of the rural networks? Look for links with Measure 1 and 2 for knowledge transfer Take good ideas from experiences in other programmes Check if there are other existing standards for dissemination

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

13

Break-out Groups 7 and 8: How to organise EIP-AGRI networking at national/regional level? Proposed questions for the group

What are the various functions that networks can/need to perform in EIP-AGRI implementation?

What existing platforms/networks can be used? What functions can they deliver?

What practical activities can be included in NRN Action Plans for the networking of advisers and innovation

support services?

Under what circumstances would it be useful to establish additional specific networks (e.g. under Article

35) to support EIP-AGRI implementation?

How to reach and connect with independent advisers, innovation brokers and support services? What is

the added value to involve them in the EIP-AGRI measures? How to network local/regional/national levels?

Conclusions/Recommendations

The following questions were discussed:

What are the various functions that

networks can/need to perform in EIP-AGRI implementation? What existing

platforms/networks can be used?

What functions can they deliver?

Collect and share information Training Use existing national and regional networks, what are their

strengths, functions, etc.? What tools are available – and what is their ability/capacity to

exchange/disseminate information Need for compatibility between systems at regional, national

and EU level Web sites, search engines, thematic fora are all useful –

beware of language difficulties

What practical activities can be

included in NRN Action Plans for the networking of advisers and innovation

support services?

Need for training/education of innovation support service providers e.g. a tool-kit

Create a database that links to the EIP-AGRI database Need for multipliers Need to coordinate/link the EIP-AGRI work with the work in

NRNs. Compensate for/remunerate the costs of private innovation support services: part of OG project costs or network activity funded by TA

Under what circumstances would it

be useful to establish additional

specific networks (e.g. under Article 35) to support EIP-AGRI

implementation?

May not necessarily be useful to create additional networks - need to incorporate existing advisory networks – it may be useful to form cross-cutting networks or on special themes

Standardisation on thematic platforms? Some thematic networks already funded by the COM – not necessarily nationally, but may be easier to share information between OGs and MSs

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

14

How to reach and connect with

independent advisers, innovation

brokers and support services? What’s the added value to involve them in

the EIP-AGRI measures?

Platform to facilitate peer to peer visits National contact point, establish information agency to

facilitate networking Organise information sessions, business, forestry, farmers to

reach as many organisations as possible To promote the partnership you need to involve farmers. Need to make the farmers and the farmer community the

centre of the process – the people on the ground How to connect supply and demand of innovation? Invite

practitioners, people that have the problems The institutionalised associations should not dictate the agenda

How to network at

local/regional/national levels?

Challenge to involve the regional level – there is a need to find tools to ensure compatibility

Principle of subsidiarity and complementarity Training of brokers should be implemented at the national

level and supported with interpretation of regulations etc. At EU level the expectation would be to offer some

standardisation, compatibility and registration of results

Break-out Group 9: Innovation brokering and support: what, who, how, when, where…?

Proposed questions for the group

Are we clear what we mean by ‘innovation support services (ISS)’ and ‘innovation brokers’?

What is the range of actors that can provide innovation brokering and support?

What could be the role of independent advisers?

How to enhance visibility of ISS to enable them to capture grass-roots ideas?

How are MS/regions choosing to support/finance innovation brokers and support services?

Is there a need to recognise innovation brokers and support services officially?

How to link local/regional/national levels for innovation support?

Can/should ISS work across MS to facilitate cross-border Operational Groups?

Conclusions/Recommendations

The following questions were discussed:

Are we clear what we mean by

‘innovation support services (ISS)’ and ‘innovation brokers’?

Still learning about the difference between ‘Broker’, ‘Facilitator’ and ‘innovation support services’. There is a distinction: ISS is more generic, a broker is specialised ISS can be an extension of brokering

What is the range of actors that can provide innovation brokering and

support? Examples please!

What is needed are public and private actors who can gain the trust of farmers/local community. This may include, if relevant: Extension services/advisory agencies Farmers/agricultural associations Research centres and expert groups Sub-contracted services Business clusters

EIP-AGRI SEMINAR 'LAUNCHING OPERATIONAL GROUPS AND EIP-AGRI NETWORKING IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES' REPORT

15

NRNs NGOs Private consultants Public private partnerships e.g. Local Action Groups

Is there a need to recognise

innovation brokers and support services officially?

It is possible, but not a popular option in Member States Better to use other tools to help find relevant actors/services

e.g. a list of potential innovation brokers on EIP-AGRI/NRN websites

Important that correct set of skills are promoted – including agricultural expertise

How are MS/regions choosing to support/finance innovation brokers

and support services?

Advisory services measure (Article 15) Co-operation measure (Article 35) Technical assistance Other funding (e.g. European Social Fund, …) ? Lump sum (need for more information!) vs. actual costs

(paying agency & court of auditors!) Small and big OGs may need different types of broker: local

actors vs. national actors (e.g. Soil Association UK) Note that it could be useful to combine different approaches/methods

What could be the role of

independent advisers?

To help identify a lead partner; guide farmers; coordinate the OG; help to plan projects; motivate; direct people to funding; offer tailor made advice; respond to issues/questions etc.

How to enhance visibility of ISS to enable them to capture grass-roots

ideas?

Use existing networks Joint events Use media, specialist press Build on existing examples, and structures Know your target audience

Break-out Group 10: Free discussion

This was an open discussion joined by a small group of participants interested to talk about their own specific questions and ideas. It was a good opportunity for peer-to-peer mentoring through the sharing of concrete

experiences and the double-checking of personal interpretations of the regulation/EIP-AGRI guidelines. At the end of the session all participants agreed that more opportunities for such free discussion and sharing of

experiences would be very valuable.

16

The European Innovation Partnership 'Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability' (EIP-AGRI) is one of five EIPs launched by the European Commission in a bid to promote rapid modernisation by stepping up innovation efforts.

The EIP-AGRI aims to catalyse the innovation process in the agricultural and forestry sectors by bringing research and practice closer together – in research and innovation projects as well as through the EIP-AGRI network.

EIPs aim to streamline, simplify and better coordinate existing instruments and initiatives and complement them with actions where necessary. Two specific funding sources are particularly important for the EIP-AGRI:

the EU Research and Innovation framework, Horizon 2020, the EU Rural Development Policy.