Meeting Societal Challenge 2

Evolution of approaches to impact fromFramework Programme 5 to Horizon 2020

Donal Murphy-Bokern

Katerina Moutou, University of Thessaly, GreeceFelice Addeo, University of Salerno, ItalyRuxanda Berlinschi, KU Leuven, Belgium.

Angela Delli Paoli, University of Salerno, ItalyDaniel Neicu, KU Leuven, Belgium, France

Peter Teirlinck, KU Leuven, Belgium

This presentation is supported by a paper published at:

Text supporting the presentation at the COLUMBUS Blue Society Knowledge Transfer Conference 2017

7 November 2017

Evolution of approaches to impact from FP5 to Horizon 2020

www.murphy-bokern.com/images/Paper_for_the_Columbus_Project_Conference.pdf

Agriculture and the marine?

On 25 June 1731 the first meeting of the Dublin Society

was held in the Philosophical Rooms of Trinity College,

Dublin. The Dublin Society's founding aims were to assist

in the improvement of “husbandry [agriculture],

manufactures and other useful arts…” in Ireland.

Agricultural knowledge transfer is one of the oldest civilian public services (at least in the West)

What is impact?

Primary

users

Socio economic

change

‘Impact’Research projects

Secondary

users

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

ob

jecti

ves

National projects

Impact areas

EU projects

How is impact generated?

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Photo: Irish Cattle Breeders Federation

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Reduction of N excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for improved

livestock products (2007)

Photo: Irish Cattle Breeders Federation

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Approaches to

reduce N

excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for

improved dairy

products and

robust cows

Reduction of N excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for improved

livestock products

Photo: Irish Cattle Breeders Federation

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Approaches to

reduce N

excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for

improved dairy

products and

robust cowsSustainable organic and low-input

dairy production (2010)

Photo: Irish Cattle Breeders Federation

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Approaches to

reduce N

excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for

improved dairy

products and

robust cows

Organic and

low-input

dairying

Sustainable organic and low-input

dairy production (2010)

Photo: Irish Cattle Breeders Federation

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Approaches to

reduce N

excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for

improved dairy

products and

robust cows

Organic and

low-input

dairying

Optimising terrestrial farm animal

reproduction systems

and/or technologies (2012)

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Approaches to

reduce N

excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for

improved dairy

products and

robust cows

Organic and

low-input

dairying

Optimisation

of

reproductive

success

Robust

improvement

of fertility

Optimising terrestrial farm animal

reproduction systems

and/or technologies (2012)

Photo: Irish Cattle Breeders Federation

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Approaches to

reduce N

excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for

improved dairy

products and

robust cows

Organic and

low-input

dairying

Optimisation

of

reproductive

success

Robust

improvement

of fertility

Development and exploitation of

genomic data, tools, phenotyping

approaches and breeding

concepts for sustainable

animal production systems (2013)

An example – dairy cow improvement

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013

Approaches to

reduce N

excretion in

ruminants

Breeding tools for

improved dairy

products and

robust cows

Organic and

low-input

dairying

Optimisation

of

reproductive

success

Robust

improvement

of fertility

Development

and

exploitation of

genomic data

and tools

Development and exploitation of

genomic data, tools, phenotyping

approaches and breeding

concepts for sustainable

animal production systems (2013)

Photo: Irish Cattle Breeders Federation

Direct users –

e.g.‚’farmers’

3 projects

Direct users –

e.g.‚’bio-based’

4 projects

Direct users –

‘Food industry

3 projects’

Direct users –

‘Policy’

Impact area 1

Impact area 2

Impact area 3

Impact area 4

Impact area 5

Impact area 6

Impact area 7

Project activity 1

Project activity 5

Project activity 6

Project activity 7

Project activity 8

Project activity 9

Project activity 10

Project activity 2

Project activity 3

Project activity 4

Portfolio analysis: identifying direct users, what they use results for, and the project activity for 2,305 projects

Direct users Impact areas Activities

Consortium 1

Consortium 2

Consortium 3

Consortium 10

Projects

The primary (direct) users

0

100

200

300

400

500

FP5

FP6

FP7

H2020

The primary (direct) users – proportional funding

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020

Fishers

Blue growth sector

International development

community

Engineering sector

Forestry and wood products

sector

Pharma/fine chemicals industry

(incl. biocides)

Breeding industry

Farmers

Bio-based industry (non-food)

Food industry

Policy

0 100 200 300 400

Major crops

Animal health and welfare

Food safety

Chemicals

Lignocellulose processing, biorefining, biofuels

Food and health

Research

Aquaculture

Food manufacturing

Fisheries management

Livestock

Functional food

Minor crops

Value chain development

Blue growth

Forestry

Environment and biodiversity

Agriculture

Dairy

Biomaterials

Organic farming and food

Plant health

GMO

Biomass crops

Rural and regional development

Algae

Soil protection and management

EU enlargement

Trade

Wine and beer

Addressing antibiotic problems

Meat

Wood products manufacturing

Pesticide safety

Grassland

Bees and honey

Pulp and paper

Food security

Genetic resources

Bioeconomy

FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020

The impact areas

Project activities

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Process engineering

Communication - networking

Nutrition

Genetics - plant breeding

Biomaterials engineering

Biotechnology

Detection/monitoring/sensing

Plant and soil

Economics/marketing

Ecology

Risk assessment

Immunology - virology

ERANET

Epidemiology

Genetics - animal breeding

Fisheries modelling

Value chain development

Microbiology

Policy analysis

Marine bio-prospecting

Forestry

Genetic resources

Product development

Livestock production

Research strategy

Engineering

Prion biology

Agronomy

Lipid chemistry

Crop protection

Algae production

Food chemistry

Traceability

Thematic network

Animal nutrition

Aquatic ecology

Fish biology

Marine engineering

Million EUR

The project activities

How has the role of innovators and other uses in participation and coordination

developed?

Who is participating? - participations

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020

Public body

Other

Private for profit

Higher education establishment

Research organization

Who is coordinating?

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020

Public body

Other

Private for profit

Higher educationestablishment

Research organization

All projects Excluding BBI and SME

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020

Private for profit

Other

Public body

Research organization

Higher education

establishment

Who is coordinating research and technological development projects?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020

Research organization

Public body

Private for profit

Other

Higher education

establishment

User communities: who is coordinating projects for plant breeders?(EU contribution in million Euro)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020

Other

Private for profit

Research organization

Higher education establishment

User communities: who is coordinating projects for fish farmers?(EU contribution in million Euro)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

FP5 FP6 FP7 H2020

Other

Private for profit

Higher education establishment

Research organization

Project size and coordinationProject size (EU contribution) and type of coordinating organisation in project for projects starting between July 1999 and January 2017

How has the portfolios changed with respect to the location of project activity?

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

Proportion (%) of EU investment in research for land-based farmers going to different countries (narrow blue bars) and the proportion of the EU agricultural land base of those countries (wide green bars)

0 5 10 15 20 25

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DE

DK

EE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HR

HU

IE

IT

LT

LV

MT

NL

PL

PT

RO

SE

SI

SK

UK

FP6

FP7

H2020

EU investment in research for land-based farmers in relation to the agricultural land area (Euros/ha)

Project size and coordinationProportion (%) of EU investment in research for finned-fish farmers going to different countries (narrow black bars) and the proportion of the total finned fish produced by those countries (wide blue bars)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

NORWAY

TURKEY

UK

GREECE

FAROE ISLANDS

SPAIN

ITALY

FRANCE

DENMARK

POLAND

GERMANY

CZECH REPUBLIC

HUNGARY

IRELAND

FINLAND

CROATIA

SWEDEN

ICELAND

NETHERLANDS

PORTUGAL

CYPRUS

AUSTRIA

BELGIUM

ISRAEL

Fish Production 2015

Requested EU contribution

Is there evidence of concentration or incumbency in the participant base?

Distribution of funding in terms of coordinating organisation type and country combinations

FP5

Research organization

FR

Research organization

NL

Higher education

establishment DE

Research organization

DE

Research organization

ES

Higher education

establishment IT

Higher education

establishment NL

Higher education

establishment DKHigher education

establishment SE

Higher education

establishment BE

Others

Research organization

FR

Research organization

NL

Research organization

UK

Higher education

establishment DK

Higher education

establishment NLHigher education

establishment DE

Higher education

establishment UK

Research organization

DE

Research organization

IT

Higher education

establishment SE

Others

Distribution of funding in terms of coordinating organisation type and country combinations

FP6

Higher education

establishment UK

Research organization FR

Research organization NL

Higher education

establishment DE

Research organization UK

Research organization DEHigher education

establishment BE

Higher education

establishment IT

Research organization ES

Higher education

establishment DK

Others

Distribution of funding in terms of coordinating organisation type and country combinations

FP7

Research organization FR

Private for profit IT

Higher education

establishment UK

Research organization NL

Higher education

establishment DK

Research organization DE

Private for profit NL

Research organization ES

Private for profit ES

Higher education

establishment IT

Others

Distribution of funding in terms of coordinating organisation type and country combinations

H2020

Distribution of funding for coordination in terms of organisation type and country combinations

In FP7 and H2020

FP7 H2020

Research

org. FR

Private for

profit IT

Higher

education UK

Research

org. NL

Higher

education DK

Research

org. DEPrivate for

profit NL

Research

organization ES

Private for

profit ES

Higher

education est. IT

Others

Higher

education UK

Research

org. FR

Research

org. NL

Higher

education DE

Research

org. UKResearch

org. DEHigher

education BE

Higher

education IT

Research

organization ES

Higher

education DK

Others

Distribution of funding coordination in terms of coordinating organisation type and country combinations

In FP7 and H2020 excl. SME and BBI projects

FP7 H2020

Research org.

FR

Research org.

NL

Higher

education UK

Research org.

UK

Higher

education DK

Higher

education DEResearch org.

DE

Higher

education NL

Research org.

ES

Higher

education IT

OthersHigher

education UK

Research

org. FR

Research

org. NL

Higher

education DE

Research

org. UKResearch

org. DEHigher

education BE

Higher

education IT

Research

organization ES

Higher

education DK

Others

Distribution of project funding in terms of coordination in relation to user communities – plant breeders

Higher education

establishment NL

Research organization FR

Higher education

establishment UK

Research organization UK

Higher education

establishment BE

Higher education

establishment DK

Research organization DE

Research organization ES

Higher education

establishment PT

Research organization IS

Higher education

establishment DE

Research organization NL

Research organization FI

Distribution of project funding in terms of coordination in relation to user communities – fish farmers

Research organization

FR

Research organization

NO

Research organization

ES

Research organization

EL

Higher education

establishment SE

Higher education

establishment BE

Other BE

Private for profit NL

Higher education

establishment DK

Private for profit DE

Others

Meeting Societal Challenge 2

The views from impact communities

Impact communitiesNo of experts

invited

First round

No of responses

Dairy farmers 14 4

Cereal and grain legume crop breeders 11 5

Fish breeders (aquaculture) 10 3

Lignocellulose processors 10 3

Bio-based materials and polymers sector 10 0

Food industry with respect to food safety 18 1

Total73 16

Response rate – Low for individual case studies

Key results

Impact communities recognise the relevance of SC2

They use some results

But they perceive many obstacles and don’t regard the projects as well-tuned to the needs of innovators

Respondents reported many barriers to impact.

Challenges perceived by impact communities

Dominance of academic organisations that have no interest in impact

Projects are too big

Valley-of-death between research outputs and commercially viable innovation

Access to results

Lack of interaction with regulators and regulation

Contribution to Societal Impacts

Strong link between improvement of European economy and positive impact on the environment and mitigation of climate

Major Impact Total %

Securing safe and high quality food for all

26.0

Mitigating and/or adapting to climate

change 39.4

Safeguarding resources, ecosystems

and biodiversity61.6

Competitive European economy and strong

communities 65.0

Impact cannot be ‚remote sensed‘

Lessons from Framework Programme 5

There is evidence of a profound disconnect

Mandating SME involvement did not alter leadership

The multi-actor approach

The system can be disrupted

Must move innovators to the centre of the R&I process

This points to I&R actions to complement R&I actions

Smaller more focused projects

Collectivise support functions, e.g. knowledge interaction

Primary

users

Socio economic

change

‘Impact’Research projects

Secondary

users

So

cio

-eco

no

mic

ob

jecti

ves

National projects

Impact areas

EU projects

Portfolio design

Acknowledgement

Grischa Hadjamu

Roman Brenne

Elisabetta Balzi

Waldemar Knut

John Bell