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