The Logic of Eip Agri

March 2014

MSC THESIS THE LOGIC OF EIP AGRI

Building Innovation Through Adaptive Governance | Koert Verkerk

MSc THESIS

The Logic of EIP agri Building Innovation Through Adaptive Governance

March 2014

C.J. (Koert) Verkerk, BSc

Supervisor: Dr. G.E. (Gerard) Breeman, assistant professor Public Administration and Policy, Wageningen University

Second reader: Prof. C.J.A.M. (Katrien) Termeer, professor Public Administration and Policy, Wageningen University

4 Abstract The European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability aims to contribute to the agricultural sector by supporting innovation. As new policy measure under the CAP provisions it aims to close the gap between farming practice and (applied) research. By doing so, the EIP agri can help actors to better fulfil the innovation process, from the phase of identifying a problem to the phase of dissemination of knowledge. Innovation processes are difficult processes to steer because of the many actors involved and the many interests of those actors. The theory of adaptive governance can be used to understand complex processes such as innovation processes. The key characteristics of adaptive governance, being resilience, multi stakeholder involvement, multi-level governance and room for experimentation are appropriate elements to analyse innovation processes. At first sight, the EIP agri seems to contain these notions of adaptive governance. However, by conducting an extensive participatory observation and an expert workshop, it became clear that still some problems need to be encountered. Possible solutions to these problems were discussed when the theory was applied to practice. In order to make the EIP a good functioning policy, it appears to be essential to better understand the behaviour of the actors involved. In innovation processes, actors are not only driven by goal seeking behaviour but their behaviour should also be understood by a logic of adaptability. This logic takes into account the context in which (innovation) processes take place. By doing so it becomes better possible to explain and steer processes of innovation.

6 Preface & acknowledgements Innovation is a word used in many contexts although little understood. What is innovation? How can it contribute to society? In agriculture, innovation is considered of high importance by many people. However, when talking to farmers, the ones really performing agriculture, innovation was, and still is, often a vague concept. But this situation is changing. The agricultural sector is facing many challenges, of which the largest is providing food for nine billion people in 2050. In accomplishing this, developments need to take place in production methods of this sector. This is when innovation comes in, introducing processes of development and change. New European agricultural policy tries to stimulate innovation. The European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP agri) aims to close the gap between research and practice. By doing so the challenges faced by European agriculture should be tackled. This thesis aims to provide an insight in the operations of the EIP agri in order to develop the concept further and such contribute to innovation in Europe’s agricultural sector.

I have written this thesis as part of my masters’ education at Wageningen University. The EIP was and is a subject in which I operated for one and a half years. As a trainee at LTO Nederland I got the opportunity to contribute to the development of the EIP agri, both in Brussels and in the Nether- lands. I would therefore like to thank Luc Groot, Klaas Johan Osinga and Wijnie van Eck for providing me this opportunity, you have been great colleagues! During my work for LTO I met many interesting people, thanks to all of them I got the chance to develop my thinking about the EIP agri but also to develop myself. In particular I want to thank Inge van Oost, Annemiek Canjels, Jan van Esch and Henk Kieft. Not only did you cooperate with me during my work, you also participated, together with Klaas Johan Osinga, in the workshop I organised in order to collect data for this thesis. Writing a thesis has not always been an easy process for me, ‘practicing science’ is something of which I got the feeling sometimes that I would never learn. However with the constant support of Gerard Breeman I did manage to finalise this product! Even after three courses, an internship and two theses you managed to teach me new things, thanks a lot for that. I would also like to thank Katrien Termeer for being the second reader of this thesis and closely following the process. Jolien, you have been a great support by helping me finalising this thesis, your comments and work has been of great, great value. Many thanks to Siem Korver; he opened many doors for me during my study. Despite the difficult times momentarily I hope we can work together for still many years to come and you will again get to enjoy the good things in life very soon. Finalising this preface I still need to thank three people. My parents, for your support, in every way and by all means possible. And Debby, for your help with this thesis and everything, always.

Koert Verkerk

Rhenen - March, 2014

7 Content Abstract ...... 5 Preface & acknowledgements ...... 7 1 Introduction ...... 12 2 Research framework ...... 14 2.1 Structure ...... 14 2.1.1 Desk study ...... 14 2.1.2 Empirical research ...... 15 2.2 Methodology ...... 16 2.2.1 Ex-ante policy evaluation ...... 16 2.2.2 EIP expert workshop ...... 16 2.2.3 Participatory observation ...... 17 2.2.4 Hermeneutics ...... 18 2.2.5 Analysis of the empirical data ...... 20 2.2.6 Dutch focus in European policy ...... 20 3 Desk study ...... 21 3.1 Innovation ...... 21 3.1.1 Types of innovation...... 21 3.1.2 Evolutionary Economics ...... 22 3.1.3 Innovation Models ...... 23 3.1.4 Actors ...... 26 3.1.5 Conclusion ...... 29 3.2 Innovation as adaptive process ...... 30 3.2.1 Adaptability ...... 30 3.2.2 Governance ...... 30 3.2.3 Adaptive governance and innovation ...... 31 3.2.4 Conclusion ...... 33 3.3 The European Innovation Partnership for ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ ...... 34 3.3.1 European context ...... 34 3.3.2 European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ ...... 35 3.4 EIP agri & adaptive governance ...... 44 4 Empirical Research ...... 48 4.1 Participatory observation ...... 48 4.1.1 Traineeship in Brussels ...... 48

8 4.1.2 The EIP roadshow ...... 51 4.2 Workshop ...... 52 4.3 Interpretations ...... 56 4.3.1 Vested interests ...... 56 4.3.2 Concept of EIP ...... 57 4.3.3 Agriculture vs. research ...... 59 4.3.4 Role of different governments ...... 60 5 Conclusion ...... 62 6 Discussion ...... 66 References ...... 70

Appendices ...... 76 1 EIP expert workshop...... 77 1.1 Workshop guidelines + agenda ...... 77 1.2 Codes ...... 80 1.2 Participants ...... 86 2 Participatory Observation ...... 89 3 EIP Roadshow ...... 94 3.1 Presentation ...... 94 3.2 Report of Roadshow meeting...... 101 4 Proposed EIP articles ...... 104 5 Proposed budget allocation POP3...... 110 6 Overview of Dutch innovation measures and funds ...... 111

10 Used abbreviations

AKIS – Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (working party of SCAR) CAP – Common Agricultural Policy COSME – Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium Enterprises DDB – Dutch Dairy Board EAFRD – European Fund for Rural Development EIP – European Innovation Partnership ERA-NET – European Research Agenda Network EU – European Union EZ – Ministerie van Economische Zaken FAS – Farm Advisory Service FG – Focus Group FP – Framework Programme GLB – Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid H2020 – Horizon 2020 HLSB – High Level Steering Board JPI – Joint Programming Initiative KIC – Knowledge and Innovation Community LAG – LEADER Local Action Group LEADER – Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l'Économie Rurale LTO – Land en Tuinbouw Organisatie MCA – Multi Criteria Analyses NVV – Nederlandse Vereniging van Varkenshouders OG – Operationele Group POP(3) – Plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma (tiert verspon) PSF – Policy Support Facility R&D – Research and Development RDP – Rural Development Programme SCAR – Standing Committee on Agricultural Research SME – Small and Medium Sized Enterprise/Company SP – EIP Service Point TN – Thematic Network

11 1 Introduction Innovation has always been considered as the key to economic growth. In this study the concept of European Innovation Partnerships is analysed as a form of policy to stimulate innovation and therefore economic growth. The economic growth of the Netherlands has been outstanding for the last 50 years, since 1945 the income of Dutch citizens has grown with 400% (CBS 2010). This is a big achievement, not only from an historical perspective but also in international comparisons. Just a few decades ago, the economic performance of the Netherlands was average compared to other western countries. Today, it is one of the best scoring countries of Europe in terms of per capita GDP, productivity and the employment participation rate, even despite the economic crisis of recent years (European Commission 2013). But there are no guarantees that this situation will continue. Global economic powers are changing. Many emerging economies are developing from low-wage countries into knowledge-driven economies. These changes are creating all sorts of new opportunities but are also putting established positions under constant pressure. Production processes are changing faster. Innovation is no longer a short-term activity undertaken by a few inventors; it has become a perma- nent process that involves many people, from shop floor workers to senior executives, suppliers and customers. The question is how the Netherlands can thrive in these new circumstances (WRR 2013).

In recent years, the western world is debating whether and how government authorities can promote economic growth in their countries. Usually liberal ideas dominate: governments should ar- range the right basic conditions, a well operating legal system, a good infrastructure and enough stability, then growth will automatically follow (De Beaufort 2010). However, these views have been changing; authorities could and should do more. The rise of the Asian Tigers was especially important in this respect; their growth was largely due to state interventions. Upon closer examination (WRR 2013), the economic success of many Western countries also turned out to have been orchestrated. Silicon Valley would never have happened without the US government’s spending on defence, and the leading role of the Dutch agriculture and food sector can also be attributed to the longstanding and systematic state aid (IOB study 2011).

The current economic context and the long term business cycle are both reflecting a constantly changing environment, which have resulted in new initiatives to promote innovation. In this context the European Commission introduced the Europe 2020 strategy, which is the European Union’s growth strategy for the next ten years. It is divided into seven flagship initiatives, which are based on three mutually reinforcing aims: establishing a smart-, sustainable- and inclusive- economy. These priorities should help the European Union (EU) and the Member States reaching high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion. Each EU Member State has adopted its own national targets in each of these areas which can be achieved by undertaking concrete actions.

The Innovation Union is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy for a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy (EU SCAR 2013). Containing over thirty actions points it aims at three things. In the first place Europe should become a world-class science performer. Second, obstacles for innovation as market fragmentation, expensive patenting and skills shortages, should be removed. Third, the way in which public and private sectors work together should be improved by the introduction of Innovation Partnerships between the European institutions, national and regional authorities and businesses. The Innovation Union illustrates that the ideas about innovation have been evolving towards a broader concept. Innovation is not limited to science, research & development (R&D) and knowledge extension (EU SCAR 2013). The importance of this vision is underlined by

12 the available budget. The research funding program of the Innovation Union, called Horizon 2020, has become an important and substantial financial instrument with a budget of around 70 billion euro for seven years (2014-2020).

The agricultural sector also contributes to the aims of the Inno- vation Union. Within the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), support for innovation will be strengthened. The political agreement on the CAP (Regulation 1305/2013 2013) acknowl- edges the importance of research, knowledge transfer and innovation in addressing the challenges faced by European farmers (EU SCAR 2013). The European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP agri) will be supported through the Rural Development Regulation of the CAP, stimulating innovation in the agricultural sector. The EIP agri aims to bridge the gap between research and farming practice. It will do so by stimulating the articulation of questions from farmers in order to identify needs for research and dissemination of research results back to farmers. Figure 1: The goal of the EIP agri (EC 2012)

These policy initiatives raise the question whether this type of innovation policy can contribute to turn the European economy into a competing economy. Especially in the Netherlands, being the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, innovation has a crucial role to play when the Netherlands wants to maintain this position. The question is whether the new European innovation governance is able to adopt the EU to a changing world. In this thesis I will explore the governance of the European innovation scheme and the EIP agri. I will use the theory of adaptive governance in testing whether this new innovation policy is adaptive and ready to operate in a constantly changing environment.

This thesis focuses on the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustain- ability (EIP agri) seeking an answer to the research question:

‘In which way contributes the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability to innovation in the agricultural sector?’

My thesis combines an analysis of the theoretical concepts of innovation and governance, and an analysis of observations stemming from my work for the EIP. This combination of theoretical analysis, practical knowhow and observations will lead to practical but theoretical underpinned recommendations for the EIP agri aiming at improving the EIP agri.

13 2 Research framework This thesis focuses on the implementation and development of the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability as a new form of European agri innovation policy. This chapter describes the analytical process and as such the structure of this thesis in section 2.1, and the methodology used in section 2.2.

2.1 Structure In Figure 2 the research framework is shown schematically. This thesis consists of two main types of research, a desk study (I) and an empirical study (II), which together lead to conclusions.

Figure 2: Research framework

2.1.1 Desk study The first part of the research is the desk study (I). In order to understand the concept of EIP agri, background knowledge is required of the notions upon which this new policy initiative is built. There- fore, the desk study introduces three theoretical concepts, i.e. theory of innovation and theory of adaptive governance, and EIP agri. These first two theoretical notions are compared in part A, showing that adaptive governance can be used to analyse innovation processes. In part B the concept of adaptive governance is applied upon the concept of EIP agri, showing that adaptive governance can be used to analyse the EIP agri. As such, the theoretical research provides insights from scientific theory in order to understand both concepts. Consequently, by this desk study the following sub research question can be answered:

‘To what extent does the EIP agri contains notions of the theory of Adaptive Governance?’

Chapter 3 describes the desk study. Section 3.1 centres around the concept of innovation. An introduction is given on the history of innovation, i.e. what is innovation and where does it originate from? By doing so, it becomes clear how innovation is perceived by many scholars. Next to this the concept of innovation processes is introduced and a description of how innovation takes place is given. Third, an introduction about the types of actors in innovation processes is provided.

14 Section 3.2 introduces the theory of adaptive governance in which four key characteristics are identified. These characteristics are applied to the information provided in section 3.1, to show that innovation processes can be analysed by making use of adaptive governance.

Section 3.3 provides the introduction to the EIP agri. A document study is conducted on the SCAR report about EIP agri. By doing so the key characteristics of adaptive governance can be identified in the EIP agri.

2.1.2 Empirical research The second part of the research (II) is based upon empirical research. A participatory observation and a workshop are conducted in order to gather information from practice. In this part the concepts of adaptive governance are applied upon the EIP in practice (part C). By executing this analysis a comparison of the EIP in theory and the EIP in practice can be made (part D) using hermeneutics. The empirical research aims to find an answer to the question:

‘How does the EIP agri function in practice and how can the processes of innovation in the EIP agri be steered by adaptive governance?’

Chapter 4 describes the results of the empirical research. Section 4.1 gives the results of the expert workshop, while section 4.2 provides the results of the participatory observations. Finally, section 4.3 gives the interpretations of those results.

15 2.2 Methodology This section describes the methodology used in the workshop i.e. ex-ante policy evaluation, and the participatory observations, which will first be discussed more theoretically. This section also describes the methodology used to analyse and interpret the data, i.e. hermeneutics, which will first be discussed more theoretically. Finally, this section describes the Dutch focus of this research.

2.2.1 Ex-ante policy evaluation Evaluations play an important role in improving the learning capacity of governments. To be able to learn from the outcomes of evaluations on policies, evaluations need to be understandable and useful. The ministry of Economic Affairs is responsible for evaluations on innovation policies in the Neth- erlands. According to the ‘scheme regular evaluations and policy information’ (Financiën 2006), regular evaluations should take place on government policy in order to see if the current policy measures are effective. Evaluations and policy reviews should provide insight into whether the goal of the policy is achieved, or, in case of an ex-ante evaluation, will be achieved. Governments also use the outcomes of the evaluations in the preparation, implementation and revision of new innovation policy.

Ex-ante evaluation, or evaluation up-front, is a tool that aims to understand the effects of policy in advance. This type of evaluations strives to provide first insights in the performance of the policy and the resources which need to be deployed in order to achieve these performances. This type of evaluation may also help to develop strategic choices in order to improve the policy further, or to set clear accountable goals (VBTB 2003). When aiming at the formation of recommendations for policy, ex-ante evaluations can be used.

The Dutch Chamber of Auditors studied the importance of ex-ante policy evaluations (Rekenkamer 1998) (Rekenkamer 2002). They found that ex-ante evaluations are used very little, since these evaluations are relatively unknown. The most well-known form of ex-ante policy evaluations in the Netherlands are the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment)1. The performance of an EIA is required regarding projects in the field of infrastructure and spatial planning and should provide a description of the proposed activities, the current state of the environment and a description of the consequences of the project to be executed on this environmental state. A second well-known ex-ante policy evaluation is the cost-benefit analysis. This type of evaluation is mostly performed to determine the societal costs and benefits of policy. In order to perform this type of evaluation the policy effects should be valued in terms of money (Hertin, et al. 2009)

Within ex-ante policy evaluations there is a difference between integrated and non-integrated evaluations. Integrated evaluations take into account all relevant expected effects, side effects and alternatives of the policy, e.g. costs, environmental impacts, economy and safety. Non-integrated ex- ante evaluations only study a few of these effects (VBTB 2003).

2.2.2 EIP expert workshop On January 28, 2014 an ex-ante policy evaluation as an expert workshop took place. Experts in the field of the EIP agri met to discuss the concepts of innovation and EIP. The workshop was based upon the basics of an ex-ante policy evaluation in order to test whether ‘the policy measures proposed still match the objectives of the policy’, in this case to strengthen the innovation capacity. It was a non- integrated ex-ante policy evaluation and consisted of two rounds. In the first round the concepts of

1 EIA = MER (Milieu Effect Rapportage)

16 innovation and EIP were discussed, and a problem analysis was conducted. In the second round solutions and alternatives were developed for some of the identified problems.

The expert data gathered in this workshop is validated by the variety of experts participating in this workshop. Representatives of all involved government levels participated, i.e. the European Commis- sion, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Dutch Inter Provincial Committee. A representative of the Dutch organisation for agri- and horticulture also joined the workshop, as well as a representative of the Dutch ‘Netwerk Platteland’. This representative is an expert in rural development policy and innovation processes, although ‘Netwerk Platteland’ is not directly involved in the forming of the EIP. All participants have been involved in, or closely observed, the process of developing the EIP agri from the beginning in 2012 and are considered experts in the EIP agri by other stakeholders. The workshop had an interactive character; the experts gave and received constant feedback upon their statements. The aim of the workshop was to evaluate the functioning of the EIP in practice and to formulate practical recommendations for the EIP agri.

Appendix 1 provides an overview of the specific data collected during the workshop. A description of the participating experts is provided as well as a transcription (both in Dutch).

2.2.3 Participatory observation Participatory observation is a method able to provide an ‘in depth description and analysis’ (Jorgenson 1989) of actions a researcher has undertaken, which is a good method to obtain a complete understanding of the concept of EIP agri. Interactions between organisations and actors and the meaning of this interactions need to be understood in order to fully grasp the process of developing the concept of EIP agri that has taken place. The methodology of participant observation requires that the researcher becomes directly involved as a participant in the process to observe. The participant role provides access to the world of everyday life from the standpoint of a member or insider (Jorgenson 1989). I was involved in the process of developing the concept of EIP due to a traineeship of the Dutch organisation for agri and horticulture (LTO Nederland). The assignment of this traineeship was to follow and influence the process of forming the EIP agri both at European and at national level.

As a trainee I have performed different tasks and operated in different settings, in which three different sets of activities may be distinguished. The first is the performance of lobby activities in Brus- sels on behalf of LTO Nederland. From the Brussels office different actions were undertaken with sister organisations from other countries to influence Brussels decision making about the EIP agri. I have participated in meetings with the European Commission, research institutions and other farmers organisations (COPA-COGECA). During these meetings I represented the interests of Dutch and European farmers.

Next to that I was involved in translating the EIP agri from policy to practice in order for Dutch agricultural entrepreneurs to use it from 2014 onwards. Together with colleagues from LTO I organised an “EIP roadshow”. This roadshow consisted of five meetings throughout the Netherlands aiming at diffusing information about the EIP agri and making people enthusiastic about the EIP agri. Every meeting aimed at a different agricultural sector, e.g. starch, dairy, horticulture, organic and meat farming. All meetings were represented by a different range of stakeholders, from farmers and researchers to chain parties and veterinarians. Every meeting consisted of a presentation about the EIP

17 agri followed by a discussion about what this could mean in practice for the participants. Appendix 3 provides details of one of the meetings, the presentation and the minutes afterwards.

The third activity consisted of the ‘technical’ implementation of the EIP agri in the Netherlands. The translation of the EIP agri into Dutch laws and regulations required input from LTO. The president of LTO Nederland and the portfolio holder Knowledge and Innovation of LTO Nederland chaired meetings in which all relevant stakeholders for the implementation of the EIP agri in the Netherlands participated. These meetings, which I organised, took place approximately every 3 months. These meetings were aimed at information exchange between the parties participating and identifying needs for action in order to implement the EIP agri.

As such, I have both acted as a participant and as an observer in the participatory observations, which led to building relationships with other participants in the process of developing the concept of EIP agri. This fostered opportunities to collect meaningful data. The lobby activities gave me insights in policy making at European level and innovation policy making, while the EIP roadshow showed me how innovation takes place in practice by the reactions of farmers on the proposals and the translation of the policy effects to their daily lives. Finally, the meetings about the technical implementation showed me how EIP is implemented in the Netherlands by participating in discussions between different layers of government, budget negotiations and processes of writing legislation.

The method of participatory observations also has some disadvantages. For example, it is difficult to identify the motivations behind actions of the different actors. However, by participating, the different kind of meetings, both individual and group meetings, with all actors for several times for 1,5 years provided an insight in the motivations of the different actors. Nevertheless, this overview of motivations can be influenced by my role as trainee for LTO, having a particular stake in the process. Another disadvantage of this method is the relay on interpretations, which can harm the validity of the results. The following section on the method of hermeneutics will show how these interpretations advanced.

2.2.4 Hermeneutics The methodology used to analyse and interpret the results of the workshop and the documents gathered during the participatory observations is a hermeneutical analysis. Hermeneutical interpretation is often applied to understand social phenomena in historic contexts. The method consists of interplay between specific parts of data and a more general analytical framework. This procedure can be used to gain better understanding of events and texts (Betti 1980). ‘The emphasis of hermeneutics is on the rebuilding of the meanings that the originators of texts and acts, authors and agents, associate with these. This results in the understanding of underlying meaning, not the explanation or causal connections’ (Alvesson M. 2000).

The hermeneutical method tries to understand pieces of texts by referring to another lager piece of text, and to understand a whole text by analysing small pieces of texts. “The part can only be understood from the whole and the whole only from the parts.” This understanding has led to the creation of the hermeneutic circle (Breeman 2006). ‘Hermeneutics can be applied to written texts, spoken words, interview reports, and (historical) acts in general. The domain of hermeneutics has succes- sively widened to include the understanding or acts whose ultimate context is the whole of world history’ (Alvesson M. 2000).

18 An important feature of hermeneutics is that through close and careful analysis of texts and acts, one becomes able to internalise the situation of the person who is studied (Habermas 1969). This characteristic of hermeneutics might also be found in other methodologies of the social sciences such as the participatory observation (Breeman 2006).

In their book Reflexive Methodology, Alvesson and Sköldberg (2000) explain the hermeneutic procedure. Four aspects of hermeneutics are identified: (1) the pattern of interpretation, (2) the text (3) the dialogue and (4) the sub interpretation (see Figure 3). In the following section these four aspects of the hermeneutical circle are explained and adapted to this thesis.

1. Pattern of interpretation

The pattern of interpretation is one of the first ways to interpret texts that need to be studied. These interpretations are based on so-called extra-hermeneutical sources such as preconception and pre- sumptions of the researcher. ‘Corresponding to the hermeneutics procedure, these preconceptions and concepts are constantly checked while studying and analysing the smaller parts of the text (Breeman 2006)’.

This thesis is based on the framework of knowledge derived from theory and practice. The experience gathered through the method of participatory observation and the knowledge gathered by executing theoretical research is part of the so-called initial pattern of interpretation of the researcher. The initial pattern of interpretation consists of facts formed by the researcher as a result of the experiences and the work done before.

2. Text

The second step in the hermeneutical cycle is about the interpretation of texts, in this case the workshop data and the knowledge derived from participatory observation. This interpretation process again delivers ‘facts’ such as specific words. The interpreter reads the text while looking for ‘facts’ to sustain the facts of his initial pattern of interpretation. During this step an effort is made to find con- firmation of the facts found before. However, the researcher should also deliberately look for new ‘facts’ which provide new information and may require adjust- ments, development or creation of entirely new facts. In Figure 3: The Hermeneutical Circle (Breeman 2006) order to extract facts from the texts the workshop transcription is labelled. Labelling means that the texts are studied and every sentence received a specific topic in order to come to a usable overview of the text suitable for analysis.

3. Dialogue

The third step, the hermeneutical dialogue is about reflection on the facts. The dialogue takes place between the initial understanding and the new understanding. ‘The dialogue is the core activity of the method of hermeneutics, leading to a full understanding of the process subject to the analysis,

19 preconceptions and observations made at the moment lead to new or improved understanding (Breeman 2006)’.

4. Sub interpretation

While interpreting a text, one constantly formulates new interpretations, the so-called sub- interpretations. These new interpretations form the results of the empirical research. By constantly following the pattern of interpretation new or improved understandings are developed as well as new theoretical insights.

2.2.5 Analysis of the empirical data As a result of the analysis of the empirical research, consisting of both the workshop and the participatory observation, the first phase of the hermeneutical cycle is executed. This provided the practical knowledge needed to come to recommendations for the EIP agri. Of the expert workshop a transcription was made by the researcher on the basis of a recording of the workshop, after which the transcription (the so-called text of the workshop) was labelled. In this case blocks of sentences were labelled, since not all subjects in the workshops were discussed to the same extent. In doing so, only new labels are given when the subject changes or when another person speaks, which gives a better impression about the importance of the subject and the subject itself, compared to coding individual sentences.

The different labels were grouped alphabetically, showing the importance of the subject for the EIP agri as a whole. The labels were counted and transformed into a graph to display the deviance of labels. A relative analysis was also performed, i.e. the ratio of the amount of words accompanying a label compared to the total amount of words. This relative importance is also shown in graphs, one for every round of the workshop. The graphs consist only of those labels which are used more than one time. For a complete overview of the labels, see Appendix 1.2

All meetings of the participatory observations are documented chronically, mentioning the subject, participants and main outcomes of the meeting. An overview of these meetings can be found in Ap- pendix 2 Keywords representing the main subjects were given to all meetings. By analysing these keywords it becomes clear how much attention the different subjects received and for how long they were discussed.

2.2.6 Dutch focus in European policy The subject of this thesis, the EIP agri, is an European subject since it is an European policy instrument aiming at the total European agricultural sector. Due to the diversity of the European agricultural sector and the possibilities for each Member State of the Union to implement the EIP in a different way in their Rural Development Policy, the focus of this thesis will be on the Dutch implementation of this new type of policy only. This also holds for the methods of data collection for the empirical research. However, the recommendations and conclusions of this thesis aim to contribute to the EIP agri as a whole. Therefore, this thesis should be seen as a case study for the Netherlands serving the EIP agri as European policy instrument.

20 3 Desk study This chapter consists of a desk study, in which different theoretical notions of innovation, adaptive governance and the EIP agri are compared. The chapter aims to provide an answer to the sub research question:

‘To what extent contains the EIP agri notions of the theory of Adaptive Governance?’

Section 3.1 describes the theoretical background of the concept of innovation, in which different types of innovation, evolutionary economics and different innovation models are discussed. Section 3.2 gives an overview of the theoretical notions concerning innovation and adaptive governance. Finally, section 3.3 provides more background information about the EIP agri.

3.1 Innovation As stated in the introduction there is no doubt about the importance of innovation anno 2014. Inno- vation leads to economic growth by supporting economic activity, labour productivity and employment. The social benefits of innovation go beyond its direct economic benefits. Innovation contributes to solving societal problems and 1. Innovation as change increases the well-being of citizens. ‘In- 2. Innovation as successful inventive novation’ is studied extensively in many 3. Innovation as technological development different scientific disciplines. There are 4. Innovation seen from an epistemological paradigm (as a product or process oriented radical or incremental, innova- for example seventeen professors and tion or imitation, etc.) lectures in the Netherlands, who carry 5. Innovation as a distribution pattern (diffusion) the title innovation in their field (Dessing 6. Innovation as a basis for more revenue 2012). The definitions of innovation are 7. Innovation as a system (system of organisations and institu- as a result very diverse. Usually, innovations as learning) 8. Innovation as a complex and interactive learning tion is seen as ‘a dynamic and new factor 9. Innovation as a temporal phenomenon of change’ (Dessing 2012). In Figure 4 10. Innovation as creativity thirteen different definitions of innova- 11. Innovation as the difference with change tion are given. All these definitions make 12. Innovation characteristics in relation to new insights (as co- evolutionary phenomenon) it difficult to come to agreement on what 13. ‘an idea put into practice with success", or, “The value of an innovation actually is. Therefore a more idea lies in the using of it” (Thomas Alva Edison). thorough account of innovation is needed. Figure 4: Definitions of innovation (Dessing 2012) This section first distinguishes different forms of innovation, and secondly it describes basic theories of innovation and evolutionary economics. Work of Velben (1898), Schumpeter (1954) and Rogers (1983) is used to analyse some of the key concepts of innovation, evolutionary processes in the economy and the phases of innovation. The last part of this section focuses on the actors playing a role in innovation processes and mechanisms determining their actions.

3.1.1 Types of innovation The Oslo Manual (OECD 2005) distinguishes four different types of innovation, i.e. product innovation, process innovation, organisational innovation and marketing innovation. Product innovations are new or significantly improved products, while process innovations are improvements in the production process. These process innovations are of importance because they make production process more efficient. Organisational innovations are applications or new organisational methods or strate-

21 gies, and marketing innovations are significant changes in appearance, product design, packaging, promotion and pricing of products.

The current economic situation is forcing companies to innovate more quickly. Companies can only innovate faster if their management structure is performing well and their staff is given the space needed to innovate. This means that managerial and organisational principles are critical to achieve successful innovation (Volberda 2011). Changing managerial and organisational principles is defined as social innovation, which includes the development of new management skills, the use of flexible organisational principles, the realisation of high quality forms of employment and the work with external parties (RSM 2012). By combining these four determinants organisations become able to better use knowledge. Social innovation also makes companies better able to raise the levels of competitiveness and productivity.

3.1.2 Evolutionary Economics From the different definitions of innovation given in Figure 4 one could draw the conclusion that they almost all refer to the economy and the increase of wealth. The reason for this is that classical theory of innovation is derived from the economy. In the traditional economy rational and optimising behaviour is assumed. In the thinking of evolutionary economics, which started around 1900 (Velben 1898) (Schumpeter 1954), the question why successes occur and other initiatives fail is the centre of attention. Several links are established between the evolution theory (Darwin 1859) and developments that were identified in economic practice. The theory of evolutionary economics uses insights and models from evolutionary biology to describe the dynamics of economics. Terms of biological evolution are used as metaphors to contribute to a theory of economic change and adaptation. The approach shows that the survival of variety and innovation are determined by routines and natural selection. Table 1, based on Dessing (2012), shows how the insights from evolutionary biology are associated with the insights of evolutionary economics.

Evolutionary biology Evolutionary economy

Variation/mutation Innovation

Natural selection Selection by competition

Emergence of new species / mutations (survival of the Emergence and survival of new variations / inno- fittest): vations:

- Internal genetic causes and interaction with the - External causes: power of innovation and selection environment (e.g. local aspects of interaction with the selection area separation and isolation) - Gradual improvements / incremental in- - Gradual process or major shocks (e.g. an earth- novations or radical innovations and crea- quake) tive destruction - Scarcity and research activities

Inheritance Routines

Table 1: Evolutionary biology and economy (Dessing 2012)

The Austrian economist Schumpeter looked for the causes and sources of innovation (1954). The then prevailing system of economic thinking on which many economic theories are based, describes

22 a number of central concepts such as diversity, innovation, selection environment and bounded ra- tionality. Schumpeter adds a sociologically oriented approach to this system. In this approach Schumpeter sees innovation as part of the functioning of the economic system. He argues that changes are the result of forces that destroy old processes and create new ones, the so-called process of creative destruction (Schumpeter 1954). This process allows for gradual changes to take place. An innovation or change in a separate business requires changes at other companies as well. As a result the whole system in which those businesses act (the economy) has to be changed and developed (Dessing 2012).

In evolutionary economics innovation is seen as a key factor for analysis. An economy is focused on routines and stability; companies only change when they are threatened. These changes lead to innovations, the source of variation in economic activity (Schumpeter 1954). In the economy there is a constant struggle to survive, which leads to a tension between the pursuit of stability and commitment to innovation. An economic population continuously adapts to the environment in order to survive. They do so preferably without major changes but by continuously changing small parts of their practices. In such an environment a variety of businesses occur. However, sometimes more fundamental changes have to take place, for example as a result of bankruptcies (negative feedback) or increasing returns (positive feedback) (Dessing 2012). Also social and psychological characteristics of the actors involved in processes of change and innovation play a role, e.g. the notion of entrepreneurship influences whether a company develops itself or not (Boschman 2002).

Boschman’s ‘Evolutionary economics’ Neoclassical economics Evolutionary economics (2002) provides a comparison between Lifeless objects Life objects evolutionary economy and the more classic economy. The conceptual frame- Stability Change work of the ‘model based approach of Analyses of balances Analyses of imbalances evolutionary economics’ in relation to classical economics is described in Table 2 Table 2: Classical economics vs. Evolutionary economics (Dessing 2012) (Dessing 2012).

In short, with the insights of evolutionary economics, it becomes possible to understand why some innovations succeed and others fail. As such, innovations play an important explanatory role in the evolutionary economy and lead to new techniques and activities. Interaction between users and producers of innovations determine the diffusion and dissemination of the changes. Some companies try to increase their scope with innovations so they can become more resilient (Dessing 2012).

In the following sections this notion of innovation as modus of change and development is further explained by explaining some models for innovation processes.

3.1.3 Innovation Models Different models have been developed to analyse the concept of innovation. Whereas we seek an answer to the question how innovation takes place it is useful to explain two of the most well-known models describing innovation processes, i.e. the linear innovation model and the innovation decision process.

23 Linear innovation model

The first model is the linear model of innovation (Godin 2006). In this model the phases of the innovation process follow linearly upon each other; see Figure 5. The linear model states that innovation is a process, from fundamental research to diffusion in the market (Godin 2006). This is a very technical analysis and provides not enough space for complex innovation Research Development Production Marketing processes (Godin 2006).

Innovation Decision Process Figure 5: The linear innovation model

The second model is the innovation system model (Chapple 2011). This approach is based on systematic thinking and takes into account the unpredictable course of the innovation processes. Rogers (1983) describes the process of behavioural change to achieve adaptation of an innovation. Accord- ing to Rogers innovation is too often seen as a linear process of network communication. It is however important to make a distinction between the stages in which an innovation takes shape, i.e. an invention and the process of adoption and diffusion.

The theory of Rogers (1983) is an innovation systems approach in which the development of changing behaviour necessary for renewal is emphasised. During this development different phases occur, together they form the ‘innovation decision process’. As described in the previous section on evolutionary economics the development of renewal forms is the basis for change and innovation (Dessing 2012).

The innovation decision process always starts with the phase of creativity and inventions (phase 1), which is usually followed by the phase of transformation and innovation (phase 2) and the phase of diffusion and acceptance (phase 3). Sometimes phase 2 and 3 take place simultaneously. Dur- ing the innovation decision process, change is realised and successful innovations are spread and picked up. The innovation Figure 6: The phases of the innovation decision process decision making process is, as mentioned above, no linear three phase model. Some of the phases are repeated over time. Figure 6 outlines how the phases of the innovation decision process progress cyclically.

In the following paragraphs the different phases within the process of innovation are explained, focussing on what developments are needed to initiate innovation and the diffusion of innovations. When understanding the innovation decision model, one understands how processes of innovation take place. This is important to understand because it shows at which moments interventions in the process can be useful.

24 Creativity and Inventions

This first phase is about the processes in which inventions take place, Rogers (1983) calls this process ‘the development of renewal’. An invention is the start of changes and is the prerequisite for innovation. Inventions can be products in an economic sense, but also ideas or visions. This so-called ‘process of creative production’ takes place in a special process with special characteristics. The reason for the desire of renewal can be manifold. Changes can be stimulated by for example shocking events, public debates, and social developments. During the process of creative production firstly the ‘diagnosis’ is set; a problem or need is identified, which requires action and the search for which innovations can be used to solve these problems. This can also be defined as agenda setting and matching. Consequently, secondly, the solution is searched by doing research, which can be both fundamental and applied research. The third and last part of the process is the invention or solution itself and its disclosure. As stated by Rogers (1983), organisations ‘follow their own distinctive decision making processes’ in innovations.

Transformation and innovation The second phase is about the implementations of the innovation. Rogers (1983) pays a lot of attention on the decision which should be taken to move from phase one into phase two, i.e. the process of an individual behavioural change to an organisational transformation, which implicates involving more persons. To achieve this transformation often the so-called “Valley of Death” has to be bridged. Whereas the invention in phase one still was an individual-based invention, in phase two the invention is required to function in society and networks of people. Rogers (1983) argues that communication of the innovation to potential adopters is most important, while persuasion is also Helpful for stimulating the creative process: an important part of this phase. Persuasion - Availability of an enabling environment, e.g. design means information about the innovation is studios; gathered such that possible adopters can - Cooperate with inventive people; - Relationships with experts, for example, energy ex- evaluate the innovation in a proper way. perts for co-digestion of manure; Therefore, the main outcome of this phase - Ideas sessions with experts and future users; is the development of attitude toward the - Creativity sessions with room for irrational thinking; idea or invention. - Space / freedom to deviate from the beaten track; - Social learning and co-creation in groups. Rogers (1983) describes the importance of the use of experiments or pilot projects to Figure 7: conditions helpful for the creative process (Dessing 2012) test whether an innovation is likely to succeed. Elements of the innovation are tested and reactions of the environment are monitored. When the innovation is accepted, it will be implemented in practice, which requires changes in personal or organisational behaviour. Rogers (1983) also describes the process of made changes in order to adjust the innovation to practice, i.e. the so-called reinvention of the innovation. As a final observation, Rogers (1983) indicates that the phases of the model do not always have to happen in a linear se- quence (Dessing 2012).

Diffusion and acceptance The third phase is about the processes that lead to the spread and acceptance of the change by supporting the technical and social network in which the change has to take place. This acceptation is twofold; from individual acceptance of the innovation towards acceptance of the social environment

25 of the individual. The innovation is communicated through various channels to other members of the social system. When talking about the acceptance of innovations by organisations, this phase is about the inclusion of the innovation in the daily routine (Dessing 2012).

Rogers (1983) has identified different factors that play a role in the process of diffusion and acceptance. For example, the spin-off of renewal is a so-called comparative advantage of adopting an innovation. To be the first one to adopt a certain innovation provides benefits. This relative advantage provides incentives to people to be even more urgent to adopt innovations. Compatibility is also of high importance, which is the extent to which the innovation fits into the existing norms and values of the larger group in which the innovative individual operates. The environment of an innovative individual will not accept too much change at once very often. This is also the case for complexity, i.e. the degree of difficulty of the innovation. New ideas are often seen as too difficult. Therefore, the innovation cannot suite the routines of the group or becomes inaccessible. To overcome this, the trial ability is of importance, i.e. the degree to which an innovation may be investigated. An overall factor is the rate of adoption, which is the relative speed of dissemination of an innovation.

3.1.4 Actors Within innovation processes different actors play a role. Actors are individuals, organisations or coalitions. One speaks of coalitions when two or more actors cooperate on the basis of resources or common goals. Rogers (1983) has made a distinction between different actors acting in innovation processes which will be described in this section. Understanding who plays a role in innovation processes is important because it provides insights on who have to be dealt with when trying to evoke influence on innovation processes.

Classification of actors

Rogers (1983) has distinguished seven different types of actors playing a role in innovation processes. The first five categories of actors are adopters (Rogers 1983). The basis of this idea is that not all people involved in innovation processes are able or willing to adopt an innovation at the same time or to the same extent. The classifi- Figure 8: Categories of adaptors, based on their tendency to innovate (Rogers 1983) cation of actors according to Rogers is based on when people first start using an innovation. The different types of actors are ideal types, meaning that it is a generalisation of people in order to be able to make the distinction between groups of actors.

1. ‘Innovators’ are inventive people, curious to try new ideas. They have access to an extensive network, also outside their own environment. These people can deal with uncertainties, risks and challenges.

26 2. ‘Early adopters’ are people who are more integrated in society and which are capable of translating innovations into the environment. These people check innovations and do not run too far ahead of their environment. They play an important role because they take away uncertainty about innovations, and consequently spreading of the innovation to the rest of the group can occur. Early adopters bridge the gap known as the “Valley of Death” between the invention and transformation of this invention. 3. The ‘early majority’ adopts innovations just before the majority does. They interact with early adopters, but have no leadership function. They lay the foundation for the majority to take up the idea. 4. The ‘late majority’ consists of the followers of the innovation, just after the average of the group. Adoption is a necessity otherwise they fall outside the group. Innovations are seen with sceptics and often only accepted when others have accepted it already. 5. ‘Laggards’ are the last to adopt an innovation. They are characterised by an isolated form of communication and a reference to the past. They meet changes with resistance and lag behind.

According to Rogers (1983) the five categories of adopters as described above appear in all three phases of the innovation decision process. The innovators are especially important in phase 1 (creativity and inventions) and may also have a significant contribution in the following phases. The early adopters are especially important in phase 2 (transformation and innovation) and can contribute importantly later. The early majority, the late majority and laggards play a role mainly in phase 3 (dissemination and acceptance).

As mentioned, Rogers (1983) distinguished seven types of actors. The two types of actors not yet described are ‘opinion leaders’ and ‘change agents’.

6. Opinion leaders can carry the innovation process by convincing majorities about an idea and disseminating ideas in their own network. This is particularly interesting and important in phases 2 (transformation and innovation) and 3 (dissemination and acceptance). 7. Change agents facilitate innovations or assist in the innovation process. In most cases, the change agent will work to establish innovations, but he can also argue to not adopt a change. Change agents are crucial to move innovation processes Change agents can fulfil the following roles and associated activities: - the development of a need to change further, for example by help- - developing the relationship for information exchange ing to overcome the “Valley of - diagnosis of problems Death”. Change agents are - the stimulation of the intent to change networkers and connectors. - stabilising in phase 3 (dissemination and acceptance) and avoid deviations They operate in two main - the reduction of the dependency relationship problem areas: social relations between the parties and their Figure 9: Roles of change agents (Dessing 2012) information overload.

Important factors that determine the success of change agents are the level of commitment, the degree of customer orientation and empathy to meet the needs of clients (Rogers 1983). In the Dutch innovation practice, the role of change agent is usually fulfilled by intermediary organisations,

27 such as Agentschap.nl, Courage, Innovation Network, KnowHouse, SenterNovem and Trans Forum (Dessing 2012), who are financed by governments and businesses.

The Golden Triangle

As stated above, actors in innovation processes can operate on their own or in cooperation with others by forming coalitions. A well-known form of cooperation between Government actors in Dutch agriculture is ‘The Golden Triangle’ (Figure 10), which consists of businesses and entrepreneurs, government GOLDEN TRIANGLE OF (ministry of EZ, provincial and municipal AGRICULTURE governments), and knowledge institutions and intermediary organisations. By collabo- Knowledge rating they form a great force that can ac- Businesses institutions complish innovation processes.

Figure 10: The Golden Triangle

Institutions

Arnouts (2010) defines governance as ‘public and private management’ and as steering instruments. This is closely related to the definition of institutions provided by Berger; ‘an institution is a social pattern that individuals program in society according to conscious or unconscious rules (Berger 1976)’. Therefore, institutions can be steering factors in innovation processes. Institutions are perceived as given facts that are imposed to individuals by society, and can be formed by societal organisations or other forms with a legal or constitutional basis, such as the legal or educational system. Those systems are directly recognised as institutions, while society could also be less recognis- able organised. For example, the economy is a less clear regulatory pattern for individuals in a society, but it is a system to which individuals have to comply (Berger 1976).

There are a lot different definitions for institutions in literature (Mahoney 2010). Dovers and Hezri (2010) define institutions as ‘predictable arrangements, laws, processes or custom serving to structure political, social, cultural or economic transactions in a society’. They include for example also social norms, taboos, constitutions and legal regimes (Rouillard 2012).

In innovation processes institutions provide the context for interactions among actors. The institutions provide a normative basis for all activities or actions actors undertake (Dessing 2012). Institu- tions can be constraining, for example when they lead to fixed opinions which influence the behaviour of actors in a negative way. Or enabling, for example when legislation provides money for a certain goal. Institutions play an important role in all phases of the innovation decision process since they determine to a certain extent how actors will operate during the process. The roles of actors were already observed by March and Olsen in 1989. They stated that when people enter an institution they tend to change themselves into the rules, norms and obligations customary in the institution. March and Olsen (1989) define this as the “Logic of Appropriateness”. The concept of logic gen- erally refers to broader cultural beliefs and rules that structure cognition and guide decision-making. Logics are therefore useful to explain the actions of actors operating in an institutional surrounding.

28 When operating under a Logic of Appropriateness a person asks himself several questions 1) What is the situation? 2) What kind of actor am I? And 3) What would another actor like me do in a situation like this? The “Logic of Appropriateness” is creating a situation of order and stability because every actor is changing to fit in the institution. The opposite of the “Logic of Appropriateness” is the “Logic of Consequentiality”. The “Logic of Consequentiality” is based on the notion that people change for reasons like efficiency or effectiveness, which is based upon the classic idea that people make rational choices in order to maximise benefits. Which logic is followed during a certain action, appropriateness or consequentiality, is determined by habits, emotions, coercion and calculations of the expected results on the one hand and by rules and principles on the other (March and Olsen 1989).

Logic of appropriateness Logic of consequentiality 1 What kind of situation is this? What are my alternatives? 2 Who am I? What are my values? 3 How appropriate are the different actions for What are the effects of the alternatives for me in this situation? my values? 4 Do what is most appropriate Choose the alternatives with the best effects

Table 3: Questions asked when following the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequentiality (March and Olsen 1989) The logics described above are not mutually exclusive. Actors act according to both the logics in different situations.

3.1.5 Conclusion From this section it becomes clear that innovation is a form of change necessary for businesses to survive in the economy. Innovation processes are complex processes in which three phases can be distinguished. The people active in processes of innovation do not all play the same role and make different choices at different times. The way how actors act is to a certain extent determined by institutions. These understandings help to determine why certain people need to be involved at certain moments of innovation processes. Through cooperation of actors innovation processes can be accomplished better and more easily.

29 3.2 Innovation as adaptive process This section provides an overview of the concept of adaptive governance. Adaptive governance is a form of governance which is able to steer innovation processes. In order to understand adaptive governance, first the evolution of the concepts of adaptability and governance are explained. After that, the shift from management systems to multi-level governance systems is described and used to explain the methods of operating of adaptive governance. Finally, the concepts of innovation and adaptive governance are compared, which shows the applicability of adaptive governance to analyse innovation processes.

3.2.1 Adaptability Adaptive governance originates from the field of environmental management. The concept of adaptability has become more popular since ecological systems and natural resource management are researched (Holling 1978) (Lee 1999). The thinking around adaptability started as a form of critique on scientific expert management which ignored the complexities of (ecological) systems. Adap- tive management aims to increase the resilience of ecological systems. Holling (1973) described resilience of ecological systems as ‘the ability of ecological systems to take up disturbance and maintain key relationships during this process’. Adaptive management states that management regimes should adapt to changes in the (ecological) system (Nelson, Adger and Brown 2007).

Walters and Holling (1990) identified three forms of adaptive management active in managing ecological systems. The first one is the evolutionary form. This is a trial and error approach, moving from random choices to a set of choices which prove to be successful. The second form is the passive form. This is a management approach, which makes use of one single best response based upon results in the past. The third form is the active form. This form combines different responses to form a balance between short-term performance and long-term value. This active form of adaptive management is considered to perform better in situations of high uncertainty since it does not restrict management to one single best approach. Instead, it promotes a culture of testing and learning by acknowledging weaknesses of new management regimes and encourages actively the consideration of alternative regimes (Rouillard 2012).

Thus, first, adaptive management research focused on how human activities influence the resilience of ecological systems. Later, the idea of adaptability was also used into broader social and governance systems (Rouillard 2012). The next section will focus on the concept of governance.

3.2.2 Governance Governance is a term which is used in a lot of contexts; however, its meaning is much debated. Rouil- lard (2012) provided an overview of the following definitions; Kooiman (1993) defines governance as “the patterns that emerge from the governing activities of social, political and administrative actors”, hereby making a difference in the term with the act of governing which is a “purposeful effort to guide, steer, control or manage societies”. Governance has a broader meaning than government; it includes “the whole range of institutions and relationships involved in the process of governing” (Pierre 2000)’. The term governance has been used first by March and Olsen (1989) and was later mostly used to describe the changing relationship between government and present-day society (Pierre 2000). A governance perspective represents society as a polycentric system. In such a system public debates are influenced by private actors. Some governance scholars argue that private actors nowadays have most power in society, even more than public actors. More temperate scholars

30 would argue that government has become an actor equal to other societal actors but that it has maintained a certain amount of influence (Rouillard 2012). In such a government-centred perspective, polycentric governance has been defined as the situation in which “political authority is distrib- uted across separate bodies with overlapping jurisdictions that do not stand in hierarchical relationship to each other”, where jurisdictions refer to “the political and legal competence of a unit of government to operate within a spatial and functional realm” (Skelcher 2005).

Governments control the public policy-making processes (Rouillard 2012), and as such public policies are governmental instruments. Governments design specific programmes, instruments and interventions to solve a collective and societal issue. Dovers and Hezri (2010) defined this as “positions taken and communicated by governments, avowal of intent recognising a problem and in general terms stating what is going to be done about it”. Polycentricism does not only refer to the distribution of power between governmental and non-governmental actors, the distribution of power across government departments and public agencies involved in decision making in policies are considered (Rouillard 2012).

Concluding, one could state that governance has different meanings. However, the concept is useful to analyse the multi-level nature of social systems, where it takes into account the complex nature of these systems (Rouillard 2012). These social systems are characterised by openness, multiple equilib- ria, thresholds, surprises, and cascading effects (Gunderson 2002) (Duit and Galaz 2008). This continuous changing environment influences the functioning of governance systems, which has led to ideas about the adaptability of governance systems. Within this, it is understood that organisations take the shape of their environment, which is will be analysed further in the next sub section.

3.2.3 Adaptive governance and innovation Gunderson and Holling, (2002), Dietz et al. (2003) and Folke et al. (2005) were the first scholars writing about the ideas of adaptive governance. Nelson et al. (2007) observed that these publications explain some of the central principles characterising adaptive governance, such as resilience of social-ecological systems, community-led management, polycentric governance, collaboration between stakeholders, and experimentation (Rouillard 2012). Adaptive governance is the result of a combination of the research on ecological resilience, adaptive management, and environmental self- governance (Ostrom 1990).

As discussed before, resilience is an important notion in adaptive management (Rouillard 2012). Re- silience theory is used to assess the adaptability of complex social-ecological systems (Gallopin 2006) (Duit, Galaz and Ebbesson 2010). However, questions are raised about what is a good and a bad change since changes might be experienced differently by different actors (Klein 2003) (Duit, Galaz and Ebbesson 2010). Views about this are that 1) systems should be robust and not change at all, 2) systems should change to a new equilibrium, or 3) systems should change and adapt all the time by giving up its resilience. Folke et al. (2005) argue that effective adaptive governance is a situation in which a system has the capacity to turn changing conditions into an opportunity. The system can reorganise internally and thereby influence the direction of change. In their view, the direction of change should be greater sustainability (Rouillard 2012), which can be seen as a form of resilience. In innovation processes, resilience is the goal to reach. Every innovation is about change in order to survive in the economy. The innovation decision model (Rogers 1983), as described in section 3.1.3,

31 shows that there is a constant need for change, problems are identified and action is undertaken with the aim to build a resilient system which can function in the context of the economy.

Making use of resilience theory for social systems raises questions with regard to the influencing role of knowledge, reflection and power on change (Duit, Galaz and Ebbesson 2010). Research on adaptive governance shows that community-led management has a beneficial impact (Folke 2005) (Nelson, Adger and Brown 2007), i.e. communities can play an important role since they may be more aware of changes in local conditions. Therefore, communities may be more capable of adapting effectively using relevant experiences and institutions. Decision making at the lowest level may therefore be more suitable for adaptive governance because it is more relevant and responsive to local issues and concerns (Rouillard 2012). Innovation processes recognise this need for local decision making, because innovations start in small groups of inventors and scale up following the curve via early adaptors, etcetera. In order to come to inventions local conditions must be right, involving the right people with the right knowledge in a surrounding providing room to act. However, these criteria apply for all levels of governance. Therefore, adaptive governance does not only value local decision making, linking with higher levels of governance is considered to be important as well. The combination between different organisational levels of governance can also improve response to dynamics (Folke 2005). The ideal for adaptive governance is to have polycentric forms of governance operating at multiple spatial scales, so that individuals and organisations have self-organising capacities (Rouillard 2012). Polycentric governance can increase resilience by spreading risks in social systems. They can set conditions at the right scales of intervention and allow for failure of individual units without affecting the whole (Huitema 2009). The aim is ‘to come to a balance between decentralised and centralised control, ensure synergies between organisational levels, and avoid conflicting interventions (Rouillard 2012)’. Polycentric adaptive governance does not mean that centralised decision making does not occur, but contrarily, in order to increase the capacity of actors to mobilise knowledge and resources for action participative processes are stimulated (Olsson 2004) (Hatfield-Dodds 2007). Participation of actors in decision making is seen as a way to generate new knowledge into the decision making process (Armitage 2008). But adaptive governance forms are also used to better implement policies since enforcement is not only by sanction but also by learning (Rouillard 2012). The role of different actors is considered of high importance in innovation processes as concluded in section 3.1. Bringing in the necessary knowledge at the right time via participative processes is important in completing the innovation process. Collaboration between actors, like for example in the golden triangle, can speed up innovation processes.

Adaptive management is based on testing, monitoring and learning in natural resource management, which emphasises the need to transform new knowledge into social practices. This so-called experimentation in adaptive governance is closely linked to the innovation decision model and emphasises processes fostering knowledge acquisition, diffusion and implementation across society (Folke 2005). In practice, this means that a policy option should be tested and changes should be able to be made. Huitema et al. (2009) makes in this context the difference between ‘research’ and ‘management’ experimentation. Research experimentation is about the theoretical testing of policy options to provide a scientific basis for decision-making. Management experimentation means that the implementation of a policy is an experiment in itself, so like in adaptive governance, a trial and error approach is emphasised. Traditionally however, both research and management experiments are mostly expert-led, creating a false context and top-down experimentation (Rouillard 2012). In adaptive governance, these experiments need to be executed by the communities at regional level in order to

32 stimulate learning at the right scale (Olsson 2004). Innovation processes foster these bottom-up approaches as described earlier. Experimentation is also an approach used in innovation processes. On the one hand, innovation processes must be allowed to fail because they try something new and as such experimentation should be given a chance. On the other hand, they provide space for changes in the process. When trying to steer innovation processes, the innovations taking place change again the system on which steering is aimed, asking for new steering mechanisms. In that way innovation asks for adaptation, which asks again for innovation, etcetera.

3.2.4 Conclusion Adaptive governance is a useful concept to analyse the governance of complex systems because of its assumptions in favour of multi-level polycentric governance, collaboration between different actors and room for experimentation. Innovation processes closely relate to the way in which adaptive governance operates whereas they lead to situations of continuous change in which many actors play a role and experimentation is central.

The key characteristics of adaptive governance Resilience Multi level governance Collaboration between actors Room for experiment

Table 4: Key characteristics of adaptive governance

33 3.3 The European Innovation Partnership for ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’

This section provides information about the subject of this research; the EIP agri. First, the European context of research policies is described, focussing on recent history and the current situation. Sec- ond, the EIP agri will be described in detail.

This section is based upon the work of the SCAR working group AKIS, who provided a report on the functioning of the EIP agri. The reason for making use of this report is that during the empirical research, as described in the next section, data is used which is based upon the understanding of the EIP agri as provided by the authors of the AKIS report.

3.3.1 European context The European science- technology- and innovation policy exerts an increasingly important influence on the Dutch field of science and innovation. As proven by the 7th Framework Programme, which was launched in 2007, ‘joint research’ and ‘technology programming’ are becoming important terms in the world of research (LTO Nederland 2014). The policy of the European institutions determines largely the direction of the Dutch innovation and science policy. At the same time at European level a complex, often complementary and sometimes overlapping set of instruments is developed, that offers both opportunities but also entails obligations for Dutch actors. Therefore, in the implementation of Dutch innovation this European context should be taken into account such that the necessary leverage can be achieved between national and European initiatives.

With the signing of the EU Lisbon objective in 2000, the Netherlands joined the idea of developing Europe into one of the most competitive and dynamic knowledge economies of the world. To achieve this, the 2007-2013 European funds for the Member States and regions became available in three major EU programs for funding research and innovation, which together account for a total budget of 140 billion Euros;

1. The Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7 50.5 billion) 2. Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (KIC 3.6 billion) 3. Cohesion Policy (347 billion of which 86.5 billion for research and innovation)

In addition to these programs, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) developed a strategic innovation agenda for increasing the innovation capacity to achieve sustainable growth and competitiveness. Furthermore, the European Investment Bank (EIB) had designed some financing vehicles to contribute to these objectives, which may be used as leverage to finance national funds to provide more flexibility to the innovation hubs and to accelerate innovation addressing societal challenges.

2014-2020

When in 2014 a new budget period started for the European Union, new goals were set and the Europe 2020 strategy was developed as a successor of the Lisbon Strategy. Seven EU flagship initiatives were introduced under Europe 2020, of which one is called “Innovation Union” of the Europe 2020 strategy and approaches innovation as a form of strategic overarching policy. For the Europe

34 2020 objective of smart growth, a goal is set to closely harmonise EU policies with the policies of the Member States and regions to create mutual reinforcement for solving major societal challenges.

The European Commission aims to create synergy be- Societal Challenges – Europe 2020 tween EU cohesion policy, that provides grants to regions, Health, demographic change and wellbeing; and EU innovation policy, in order to strengthen the knowledge and innovation base and to bring new ideas Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water faster to the market with support of the renewed EU pro- research, and the Bio-economy; gram structure Horizon 2020. Secure, clean and efficient energy; All steps in the process of innovation, from research to Smart, green and integrated transport; commercialisation, are addressed. However, EU policy is no ‘one size fits all’ policy but supports excellence as well Climate action, environment, resource efficiency as cohesion. For a balance between cohesion and excel- and raw materials; lence, new programs will start from 2014; e.g. Hori- Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative zon2020, COSME (The Competitiveness of Enterprises and and reflective societies; Small and Medium Enterprises (2013-2020)) and Cohe- Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens. sion Policy. With the smart specialisation strategy aimed at integrating territorial development in Europe, the Commission will Table 5: Societal Challenges allocate the 2014-2020 cohesion funds to support and energise regional innovation strategies. The EC therefore encourages differentiated research and innovation efforts for the different EU regions, to avoid fragmentation and to stimulate critical mass and achieve European knowledge clusters of world class quality. EU regions should primarily focus on their comparative strengths. In the Innovation Union agenda the regional dimension is therefore of high importance.

Horizon 2020 (H2020), the EUs Research and Innovation Policy for the period 2014-2020, plays a key role in stimulating innovative actions on the ground. The foreseen budget of H2020 is 72.3 billion Euros. A budget of almost 3.9 billion Euros is reserved to support work aimed at solving societal challenge two ‘Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bio-economy’. The money of H2020 will be divided over projects by calls for proposals like was done in earlier programmes.

3.3.2 European Innovation Partnership ‘Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability’ In this section the EIP agri is further explained. First the concept of the EIP will be discussed, after which the process of development for EIP is described. A comparison with other European innovation policies will be provided together with the context in which the EIP agri will operate. The text in this section is partly based upon the report of the SCAR working group AKIS (EU SCAR 2013) chapter three. The reason for this is that one comprehensive overview and understanding of the EIP is needed whereas the further data collection of this thesis is based upon general understanding of the EIP.

The EIP agri

The Flagship initiative ‘Innovation Union’ (EC COM 546 2010) represents a new approach to improve research and innovation in the EU. In this communication European Innovation Partnerships were established in five different sectors. The EIPs are a policy tool aimed at connecting and grouping different actions in order to achieve innovations. These groups of people will help to contribute to

35 overcome the identified societal challenges (table 5). The Flagship Initiative improves the access to finance for research and innovation, since EIPs do not have policies and finance instruments themselves. Better finance and interlinking actors in the EIP should ensure that innovative ideas can be turned into products and services in order to create economic growth and jobs. By being based upon existing policies, EIPs aim to create EU added value to (existing) innovative initiatives. EIPs stream- line, simplify, and better coordinate existing instruments and initiatives, and complement them with new actions or a more coherent policy framework where necessary (EU SCAR 2013).

EIPs aim at the forming of partnerships between actors, by using bottom-up approaches where new insights and ideas are translated into solutions. Such an approach helps not only the process of co- creation of innovation, but also speeds up the introduction of innovative ideas through the genera- tion of co-ownership: end-users and actors involved in innovation projects will be more inclined to put the found innovations into practice. It will also help focussing the research agenda by creating new opportunities for research aimed at problem-solving (EU SCAR 2013).

The next section will discuss the process in which the EIP agri is set up. This section will focus upon the EIP agri and not upon all five EIPs as discussed above.

Forming the EIP agri

The Commission Communication of February 29th, 2012 which was endorsed in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council Conclusions of June 18th, 2012, set out the objectives of the EIP agri. In order to translate the objectives into concrete actions, a High Level Steering Board (HLSB) of 42 stakeholders2, drafted together with the associated Sherpa group3, a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP advised how to create an innovation culture in European agriculture by bridging the gap between science and practice (EU SCAR 2013).

The HLSB emphasised the involvement of stakeholders in the EIP to stimulate a process of mutual learning. New and existing knowledge should be gathered and combined so it can be changed into innovations. The diversity of the agricultural sector and the agro-food chain in Europe needs to be taken into account by the EIP. Provided solutions or innovations should therefore be able to be applied successfully in all circumstances. In the SIP the role of Member States and regions in programming rural development actions (see also chapter 3) receives a lot of attention. As such, the Rural Development Policies (RDPs) are considered of high importance for the implementation of the EIP. Also the development of instruments under Horizon 2020, which should be open for all stakeholders in multi-actor projects and thematic networks, is important. This new multi-actor approach should be reflected upon when assessing project proposals and the reward system of researchers should be changed in such a way that they are stimulated to act upon such an approach. Finally, the SIP states that the EIP will only be successful if all stakeholders act together and share their ideas and experiences on innovation (EU SCAR 2013). The HLSB will not have a direct role in programming or management of the EIP agri; they will only guide the process on a regular basis. The implementation of the EIP via Rural Development Policy and actions under Horizon 2020 will be steered and monitored

2 Dutch members of the HLSB are; A.J. Maat (LTO Nederland/Copa-Cogeca), H. van Es (Freshfell Europe), R. Huirne (Europe- an Association of Agricultural Economists) and W. H. M. Saris (Coordinator JPI HDHL) 3 Dutch members of the Sherpa group (the executing group of the HLSB) are; A. Canjels (IPO/Prov. Limburg) and Henk Brink (prov. Drenthe)

36 using existing EU and national instruments. Both policies, RDP and H2020, have their own programming mechanisms and the introduction of the EIP will not change that (EU SCAR 2013).

Goals

The EIP agri aims, as shown in its title, to promote a competitive and sustainable agricultural sector, in order to tackle the societal challenge “Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research, and the bio economy”. The EIP agri will be challenged- driven. Relatively small initiatives are supported, which will contribute to the large goal of the societal challenge. To achieve this, the EIP will create connections between research and farming by involving all actors to come to a specific innovation in operational groups (EU SCAR 2013).  Primary production: technical solutions to increasing productivity and economic viability Because the EIP agri will work in a way of tak-  Resource management: eco-system services, soil functionality, water management, and genetic re- ing up bottom-up initiatives, it is impossible to sources (“public goods”) describe in detail the content and priorities of  Bio economy: innovative technology for the bio-based the EIP. Different problems ask for different economy bio-refinery; new products; reduction of solutions. The EIP Commission Communica- post-harvest loss tion (COM-79 2012) lists however possible  Supply chain: integrated supply chain solutions; new services; logistics, and management systems fields of innovative actions (Figure 11), which  Quality and consumers: food quality, food safety, and were developed on the basis of input and healthy lifestyles (consumer information and con- exchange of stakeholders. This list will not be sumer choice) ultimate since EIP actions will primarily emerge bottom up. Figure 11: possible fields of innovative action (EU SCAR 2013)

Operational Groups

The EIP values bottom-up approaches in order to achieve innovation. In the EIP this will be accomplished by linking actors in so-called Operational Groups (OGs). OGs are not restricted to specific conditions regarding for example size, composition and specific actions, but they are connected through the matter it tries to encounter. OGs have to draw an individual plan, which describes the specific project and the expected results. An important part of the work of an OG is to disseminate the results of their project, in particular through the EIP network. In this way the “Valley of Death” of the invented innovation can be bridged. The process of knowledge exchange in and between OGs will lead to new ideas and will translate existing and new knowledge into solutions that are put into practice faster thanks to the co-ownership generated during projects (EU SCAR 2013).

Innovation Brokers

A lot of actors involved in the forming of the EIP agri have stressed the issue of farmers as entrepreneurs not having the possibility to invest much time and money in a project to attain innovation. The process of innovation may take years and requires also a lot of energy and money to keep every stakeholder involved and active. To overcome this and to find innovative ideas, innovation brokers help partners to connect and set up an OG about a concrete project. Innovation brokers will not steer the OG with respect to contents, but support the OG during the innovation process. An advantage of innovation brokerage is relatively small budget costs compared to the research budgets involved in a later stadium. Innovation brokerage can be supported via diverse articles of the RDP (technical assis-

37 tance (Art 55, animation under the cooperation measure (Art 36 and advisory services (Art 16). The Innovation Broker may be compared with the change agent actors as identified by Rogers (1983).

EIP in RDP

As stated before, there are a lot of innovation policies or measures both active at national as well as EU level. This is already showed in Appendix 6, which provides an overview of Dutch initiatives (measures and funds) to stimulate innovation in the agro food sector. Different policies stimulating innovation and cooperation are in place at European level as well. The concept of LEADER is a well- known concept within rural development policy aiming at forming groups or partnerships to tackle certain problems. However, the LEADER Local Action Groups and EIP operational groups are not the same. An EIP OG is built around a concrete innovation project trying to find a solution for a specific issue or developing an innovation opportunity. This is different from LEADER Local Action Groups (LAGs). OGs and LAGs both work with ideas from interested actors. However, LAGs act on the basis of a local development strategy; they approve several projects to implement this strategy and are active for a whole EU budget period of seven years. OGs aim at a concrete innovation project, which are not necessarily bound to a specific region. Every OG also has different members, depending on the issue at hand and will only function as long as necessary (EU SCAR 2013) (LTO Nederland 2014).

Implementation

Because the EIP operates on many levels and within many existing frameworks, it structure is complicated. Figure 12 shows the working of the EIP agri when it comes to the support of OGs. This figure makes clear that the difference between policy and innovation practice is large. The funding schemes present within the Rural Development Policy and Horizon 2020 form the basis of the work of OGs.

The EIP network, i.e. the European Commission together with the Figure 12: The EIP agri (EC 2012) EIP Service Point, stays central in achieving the goals set by the EU regarding Societal Challenges and Flagship initiatives. The network will ensure that successful innovation projects of OGs are disseminated beyond the local and regional level. Next to this, OGs and other actors need to learn from each other’s mistakes and failures. The EIP Service Point (SP) will also initiate Focus Groups (FG) in order to share knowledge and practical experience. The SP will organise seminars and workshops, establish different data bases on relevant research results and good practice examples, provide support for partnering of actors, and fulfil help desk functions (EU SCAR 2013) (EIP Service Point 2013).

38 Focus Groups

As stated above, Focus Groups will be established by the EIP Network and will be built upon the lead of Operational Groups. FGs bring together around 20 experts (not solely researchers) to map issues encountered by OGs. At the moment (2013/2014) FGs are already established by the EC on topics identified by the EC. This is even before OGs have started. In the future FGs will be organised around relevant themes In 2013 Focus Groups were started on 6 identified by OGs. The general approach for a FG is (EU topics:

SCAR 2013): • Organic farming (optimising ar- able yields); • Assess the state of the art of practice, i.e. listing • Protein crops; problems and opportunities to have a list of best • Animal husbandry (reduction of practices; anti-biotic use in the pig sector); • Assess the state of the art of research, i.e. summa- • Genetic resources co-operation models; rising possible solutions to the problems listed, in- • Organic matter content of Medi- cluding a list of useful projects with contacts; terranean soils; • Identify the needs from practice, i.e. propose fur- • Integrated pest management ther research; (IPM) in Brassica's; • Propose priorities for innovative actions, e.g. a list of ideas for future interactive OG projects. Figure 13: Focus Groups 2013

Policy frameworks

As stated before, the EIP is no funding mechanism on its own. For funding, implementing and priori- tising concrete innovative actions, two EU policies are used, i.e. Rural Development Policy of the CAP and Horizon 2020 which complement each other. RDPs are put in practice within a Member State or region. Research policies, like Horizon 2020, operate across regions, across borders or at EU level. Other policies, such as Cohesion and Education Policy, might offer additional opportunities for funding (EU SCAR 2013). Both policies are discussed in the next sections.

CAP

In the 2011 impact assessment of the CAP 2007-2013, the following statement was made: “Currently new approaches take too long to reach the ground and the practical needs on the ground are not sufficiently communicated to the scientific community. This EIP will ensure a faster exchange of knowledge from research to ‘practical’ farming and provide feedback on practical needs to science via operational groups” (European Commission 2011). The EIP agri is aimed at overcoming the gap between research and practice, research results should be adopted in practice. According to the impact assessment a major weakness of the old CAP is the insufficient information flow and missing links between different actors (European Commission 2011).

Within the CAP, EIP agri initiatives are funded under the second pillar being the Rural Development Program (RDP). RDP measures stimulating knowledge transfer or innovative investments were already introduced in the 2007-2013 period. These measures will be reinforced for the period 2014- 2020. To go even further, other measures, like EIP, are added to the 2014-2020 RDP. The aims and means (OGs) of the EIP are described in Title IV. Article 61 of the Rural Development Regulation lists the aims of the EIP (EU SCAR 2013) which are:

39 • Efficient, economically viable, productive, cli- Criteria proposed by AKIS mate and environment friendly agriculture; • Steady supply of food, feed and biomaterials, • relevance of the project for actors and both existing and new ones; end-users • targeted composition of the partners • Improved processes to preserve the environ- in view of co-creation ment, adapted to climate change and mitiga- • quality and quantity of knowledge ex- tion; change & cross-fertilization • Building bridges between research and farm- • demonstrating competences on state ers, businesses and advisory services. of play/avoiding repetition • easy understandable & long-term Within RDP, measures to stimulate the work of OGs communication effect include ‘cooperation’, ‘knowledge transfer and information actions’, ‘advisory services’, ‘investment in Figure 14: Proposed criteria for OGs (EU SCAR 2013) physical assets’ and ‘farm and business development’. The key article in RDP when it comes to EIP is article 35 with the subject ‘cooperation’ (see appendix 4). Under this measure support can be given for the establishment and work of OGs of the EIP, and for the implementation of their projects. This support can be combined with support under other measures such as training (Art.15), advice (Art.16) and investments (Art. 18) (EU SCAR 2013). In order to take up the complete package of EIP measures Member States should include all those measures in their RDPs. The Rural Development Program can fund bottom-up innovation projects for the full 100%. For the selection of projects, the managing authorities may apply their own criteria. Figure 14 provides an overview of criteria as suggested by the AKIS working group. Appendix 4 provides the Dutch proposals for RDP regarding EIP, in which the proposed selection criteria for projects in the Netherlands are also given.

RDPs provide also the possibility for the setup of the European and national EIP network. Article 55 about National Rural Networks (NRN) states that the network should aim to “foster innovation in agriculture, food production, forestry and rural areas”. The action plans of the NRNs should include “networking activities for advisors and innovation support services”. Funding for the NRN is provided as technical assistance under Article 51 of the RDP. This article can also be used to finance the implementation of the EIP for the country/region (e.g. promote innovation measures, connect with EIP activities at EU level, connect to regional EIP-networks and advisory services, innovation brokers, thematic networks etc.) (EU SCAR 2013).

Horizon 2020: Multi Actor Projects and Thematic Networks

Horizon 2020 has two new instruments to support the work of EIPs; multi-actor projects and thematic networks. H2020 calls can include the term multi-actor in order to “ensure the necessary cross- fertilising interactions between researcher, businesses, farmers/producers, advisors and end users”.4 The characteristics of the research project like the planning and the composition of the consortium will in a multi-actor project be aimed at the working of EIP OGs. This ensures that end users of the innovation stay central in the project. The consortium applying for the project should, just as OGs, involve key actors with complementary types of knowledge, i.e. scientific and practical to reach the project objectives and make its results broadly implemented (EU SCAR 2013). The way of dissemination of the results should be part of the project proposal. Multi-actor projects should generate inno-

4 Horizon 2020 Council Regulation (part III section 2.2)

40 vative solutions that are more likely to be ap- Features of multi-actor projects in Horizon2020: plied due to the cross-fertilisation of ideas between actors, the co-creation and the genera- • Relevance of the research object for end-users tion of co-ownership for results (EU SCAR 2013). (importance of subject, demand driven, complementarily, creativity, absorption capacity) Operational Groups will often work within the • Targeted composition of the partnership of actors (coverage of partners, complementarily, context of their region. To ensure a broader adequacy) view and wide dissemination, links between OGs • Refining of possible solutions: knowledge ex- should be made, e.g. between groups that work change and cross-fertilisation actions during in the same sector or on the same topic. Interac- the project (actions generating co-ownership) • Short-term dissemination (via involvement of tion between them could benefit the work of actors, advisors and end-users, expertise and the OGs (EU SCAR 2013). In order to do so, track record of actors, translation) H2020 offers the opportunity to fund so-called • Long-term dissemination (output and out- Thematic Networks (TN). The focus of TNs is on reach, easy accessible and understandable) mapping research results that are not known or Figure 15: Features of Multi Actor Projects (EU SCAR 2013) tested yet by OGs. This type of work also supports the circulation of existing results and shows where research and innovation needs remain. TNs bring together relevant actors for innovation, what also will lead to the creation of new (EU) OGs and multi-actor projects (EU SCAR 2013).

Other instruments

Within Horizon 2020 a lot of instruments will continue in the 2014-2020 budget period, e.g. the col- laborative projects, the European Research Agenda Networks (ERA-NETs), Joint Programming Initia- tives (JPIs) and Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs). The objective of the ERA-NET scheme is to better organise the cooperation and coordination of research activities in the Member States (European Commission 2013), which is accomplished by mapping and linking research activities conducted at national or regional level, and the mutual opening of national and regional research programmes (EU SCAR 2013). In Horizon 2020 the organisation of common calls will stay central. For some projects an extra funding by the European Commission is available (ERA-NET+). Some ERA-NETs are already reflecting on the possibility to make joint ‘multi-actor’ calls in order to link to EIP. JPIs (European Commission 2013) also aim to pool national research efforts. The difference with ERA- NETs is the focus on common European challenges. The aim of Joint Programming is to achieve Euro- pean-wide Strategic Research Agendas (SRA) to address societal challenges. The JPIs on “Food security, agriculture and climate change” and “Healthy diet for a healthy life” are the most closely related to the agricultural EIP. KICs (European Commission 2013) partnerships bring together the fields of education, technology, research, business and entrepreneurship, in order to produce new innovations and to stimulate dissemination of these innovations. A KIC on food is under development (EU SCAR 2013).

The performance level of research on innovation differs between Europe’s regions. It is necessary to strengthen the link between research and practice. Therefore, connections with other EU policies and actors are stimulated. For example, H2020 will have increased interactions with Cohesion policy and its structural funds. Better synergies between Horizon 2020 and the Structural Funds will be achieved if after a few years of parallel operation, concrete needs on the ground will then be identified, e.g. increased investments in research infrastructures and increased support for innovation to

41 small innovative companies. In order to reach other actors and especially smaller actors, Horizon 2020 will introduce a completely new approach towards supporting research and innovation in SMEs, as well as a new approach for access to finance and easier administration (EU SCAR 2013). Harmoni- sation of rules for financing between Horizon 2020 and Cohesion Policy is also introduced, which will lead to the possibility of combining H2020 funding and funding from the structural funds in the same project.

The concept of operational groups may be applied within various funding sources since the EIP agri is not exclusively restricted to Rural Development Policy and Horizon 2020; there are also potential synergies with other policies like the EU Regional Development Fund, national or regional funding schemes, private funding, etcetera (EU SCAR 2013)5.

5 This chapter was based upon chapter three of the SCAR – AKIS report of 2013 (EU SCAR 2013)

Box 2: The EIP agri innovation process

When considering all the groups involved in the EIP agri like described above, the question remains how the innovation process will develop within EIP. The figure below provides this overview.

A farmer identifies a question because of something he noticed while doing his work. For example, a dairy farmer notices a problem regarding his cows’ udders. The farmer will speak about this problem with e.g. colleagues, the veterinarian, his agricultural advisor, and together they might identify that the farmer is not the only one having this question. However, the answer to the problem remains unclear. At that moment the farmer may decide to look for an answer to the question. He identifies the people required to find an answer and together they create an Operational Group funded by RDP.

By bringing in new knowledge trough the involvement of the right people the answer to the question may be found. If the answer is relatively easy to be found, for example because research has already been done on the issue but the results were not yet available or because in e.g. France they have already taken care of this problem and a study trip to France will provide the knowledge needed, then the knowledge cycle or innovation cycle can be closed and the OG has reached its goal. How- ever, if the answer is not found, it may be identified that more research is needed in order to find the answer. At that moment a research project in Horizon 2020 is needed in order to finance this research. The process of getting involved in H2020 requires lobby activities. When the specific problem of udders is recognized in other European countries, the EIP Service Point and the DG Agri may decide to install a Focus Group on the issue at hand. The FG will analyse the problem further and will identify the knowledge gaps. The report of the FG may then be an agenda setting report for the coming calls in H2020. Then, DG Research may decide to establish a call for tender on the topic of udders as a multi-actor project. The OG may start a consortium meeting the requirements of H2020 consortia, i.e. having representatives of at least three Member States, to execute the research. The results of the research may provide an answer to the question of the farmers. In that case the results need to be disseminated by the OG, to ensure all farmers who encounter this problem may make use of the solution which is provided. The innovation process will then be completed.

Parallel to the developments within H2020, it may be beneficial for OGs to already look for international cooperation in order to benefit from more available knowledge. This international cooperation may be found in Thematic Networks. The results from TNs need also to be disseminated by the OG, to ensure all farmers will know the solution to their problem.

43 3.4 EIP agri & adaptive governance This chapter started with the question: ‘To what extent contains the EIP agri notions of the theory of Adaptive Governance?’ As concluded in section 3.2, adaptive governance can be used to explain and steer processes of innovation. The four key concepts of adaptive governance, i.e. resilience, multi- level governance, the involvement of stakeholders and room for experimentation, fit within innovation theory. These four concepts are also to be found in the EIP agri as will be explained in this section. The section will conclude with a schematic overview and explanation of the innovation process within EIP.

Innovation means change and requires constant adaptation, which leads to new innovation, etcetera (see figure 16). The EIP agri is a new policy instrument supporting innovation at European level in the agricultural sector. Policy instruments aiming at innovation should be adap- Innovation Adaption tive in order to cope with the change resulting from innovation. The EIP is a policy instrument which will operate in existing structures like the RDP and H2020. The innovation measures proposed are designed in such a way that they fit into the structures and practices of these policies, the Figure 16: The innovation to adaptation cycle EIP agri therefore adapts to this situation.

Adaptability or resilience also implies that there should be room for change, but this change should not unbalance the system in which changes occur. When applying this to the EIP agri, it could be ar- gued that the policy of EIP agri should allow for changes, e.g. the selection of experts deciding which innovation projects to be supported should be an open process with possibilities to introduce new ideas. When only selecting experts who are considered experts in the ‘old system’, change is less likely to evolve since an old system does not allow a new system.

The multilevel nature, which is highly emphasised in adaptive governance, is clearly present in the EIP. Local decision making is much appreciated regarding the concentration of the EIP around operational groups. In the Netherlands the RDP is to be executed by the provinces, which leads to a situation in which multilevel governance is created since local issues are financed by provincial governments. At national level the support office of RDP will coordinate the efficiency ensuring issues are not handled twice, and at European level support is offered by the Service Point and via TNs and FGs. Together all the local innovations contribute with their local solution to national problems, European problems and even global problems. By the up scaling of knowledge trough thematic networks and the Service Point based in Brussels, the different levels become connected.

Different actors play an important role in innovation processes like the EIP agri, e.g. the formation of OGs. Regarding the description, OGs are supposed to consist of at least farmers and further involve every stakeholder who should play a role. This means that every OG will have a different composition, involving only those actors who are relevant for the issue at hand. Every phase in the innovation process requires other actors to be involved. During the setup of the EIP agri this approach was also applied. At the conference of November 19th, 2012 (see Appendix 2) everybody who was interested in the EIP agri was invited, such that the amount of participants exceeded 200. It was relevant to invite such a number of people at that moment in the process, because it was still a phase in which

44 the concept had to descend at all relevant people. The workshop of January 14th, 2014 involved only 60 people and was aimed at those who had an interest in the calls of Horizon 2020. At that moment, the first H2020 call was just opened and people were searching on how to react to the call and what was considered relevant.

In the EIP room for experimentation is created, which implies situations of trial and error. When ex- perimenting, something new might fail, since that is the risk of an experiment. Within the EIP agri, this approach is stimulated by granting projects which are not certain to succeed but who aim to be innovative. Next to that, the policy measures do not state what innovation is and how it should take place. Every actor or group of actors may decide that for themselves and receive room to find out.

In Table 6 the concepts of adaptive governance conducted from theory and EIP or innovation are compared with each other. By doing so, it becomes even more clear that the EIP agri can be explained by making use of adaptive governance characteristics. The table is divided into different sub sections based upon the title ‘phase in EIP’. This division is made in order to provide a clear picture of when which characteristic plays a role. In practice, the phases will not be divided in such a direct way, nor will they be set in this order by definition. Therefore, this table is just a schematic overview. The table does not include references in the third column. The information in this column is based upon the chapter of the AKIS report (EU SCAR 2013) and (policy) documents which were read in order to gain insight in the concept of EIP agri.

45 Phase in EIP Principles for adaptive policy-making Principles for innovation and EIP Understanding  Understand local conditions, strengths, and as-  The role of regions is of high importance in in- the issue at hand sets (Glouberman 2003). novation. In the context of EIP, they will exe-  Respect history: ‘adaptive systems are shaped cute RDPs and finance OGs. by their past and knowledge of this history may  The EIP will operate in a context of existing in- suggest constraints on and opportunities on stitutions, i.e. policy frameworks and social what can be done in the future.’ (Glouberman frameworks. The concept needs to be under- 2003). stood well. The existing structures need to  Understand interactions with the environment adapt to the new method. (Glouberman 2003).  Innovation processes require room for inventions. This room is given by the EIP via local OGs involving those who have a stake in the process. Objective setting  Gather multiple perspectives from a range of  Involve all relevant stakeholders at the right stakeholders involved in the issue (Holling moments. 1978)  OGs will operate only for as long as necessary,  Look for short-term criteria of success (Axelrod until goals are achieved. 2000). Design and im-  Create opportunity for self-organisation, and  The EIP agri will function via a bottom-up ap- plementation build networks of mutual interaction that foster proach in the creation of OGs. trust and cooperation (Berkes, Colding and  Innovation groups, like OGs, act in the begin- Folke 2003) (Glouberman 2003) (Axelrod 2000). ning at the regional level, however (in-  Spatial and time scales are vital to integrated ter)national linkages need to be looked for. management (Shepherd 2004).  Cooperation between actors stays central, e.g.  Promote effective surroundings of adaptive co- golden triangle, in order to adapt to changes operation (Axelrod 2000). and complete the innovation process.  Promote variation and experimentation  The dissemination and valorisation of knowl- (Berkes, Colding and Folke 2003) (Glouberman edge and best practices stays central.

46 2003) (Holling 1978).  EIP agri will leave room for experiment “when  Balance exploitation of existing ideas and it fails it fails”. strategies, and exploration of new ideas  Build a resilient system (Axelrod 2000)  Select those projects that really are innovative  Facilitate copying of successes (Ruitenbeek and aim to bring something new. 2001) (Axelrod 2000).  Build adaptive capacity (Berkes, Colding and Folke 2003).  Aim to increase information about unknown social, economic, and environmental effects (Holling 1978). Monitoring,  Monitoring and changes to the policy should  Resilience is the key, constant adaptability of evaluation, learn- not be post ad hoc additions after implementa- the system should be possible whereas innova- ing and adaptation (Holling 1978). tion leads to adaptation which again leads to tion  Conduct selection: ‘In complex adaptive sys- innovation. tems possible solutions undergo selection by  If a project is unsuccessful, it should be dis- the system. It is important to include evaluating charged and another project should get a performance of potential solutions, and select- chance. ing the best candidates for further support and  The policy should be adaptive; other ways of development.’ (Glouberman 2003). working should be facilitated if required.  Assess strategies in light of how consequences are spread (Axelrod 2000).  Refine the process: ‘in complex systems, which change over time and respond dynamically to outside forces, it is necessary to constantly refine interventions through a continual process of variation and selection’ (Glouberman 2003).

Table 6: Adaptive governance + EIP & innovation

47 4 Empirical Research The empirical research is the second part of this thesis. As described in chapter 2, a participatory observation and a workshop were conducted in order to gain practical insight in the EIP agri. The central question in this chapter is:

‘How does the EIP agri function in practice and how can the processes of innovation in the EIP agri be steered by adaptive governance?’

First an overview of the participatory observation is provided. Events determining the course of the EIP agri are described and analysed. Second the results of the expert workshop are discussed. In order to come to these results the method of hermeneutics is used as described in chapter 2.

4.1 Participatory observation Being an actor in the field of the development of the EIP agri provided a lot of data. In this chapter the main results of the participatory observation are presented. As stated before, observations were made during a traineeship in Brussels of 18 months, during which several activities were performed. The EIP roadshow was a main activity of the traineeship, and is therefore described separately in sub section 4.1.2. The other activities, which also include work related to the technical implementation of the EIP in the Netherlands, are described in sub section 4.1.1 under the general heading ‘Traineeship in Brussels’. Appendix 2 provides an overview of these activities, being listed chronologically. The scheme also provides an overview of the subjects of the activities and the participants. Every activity received keywords, being the most important subjects of the activity. An overview of the keywords is provided in figure 18. From figure 18, it also becomes clear what activities and subjects were considered most important during the participatory observation.

Performing the activities during the participatory observation provided a lot of background knowledge about the EIP agri. I started as a layman in the subject of EIP agri but by participating I acquired more knowledge. The first step of the hermeneutical cycle, the pattern of interpretation, was therefore performed during the participatory observation. By processing the data gathered during the participatory observation the second step, text, is also performed in this section for the participatory observation.

Figure 17: The Hermeneutical Circle (Breeman 2006)

4.1.1 Traineeship in Brussels This section describes the participatory observations during my traineeship in Brussels. The section is divided into sub sections considering the most important subjects during the participatory observation, i.e. RDP, role of regions, Horizon 2020, and EIP Service Point.

RDP

During the participatory observation 70 activities were conducted, during which the subjects of POP3 and RDP were discussed many times. The reason for this emphasis on RDP and the Dutch equivalent POP3 is not surprising whereas the EIP will be part of the RDP regulations. When comparing the

48 development of these keywords over time (appendix 2), one can see the EIP Keywords Participatory developing from a European policy Observation subject towards a more national policy subject. As such, POP3 becomes of Amount of time used more importance when time passes, which is also proven by other keywords POP3 20 like national cooperation and the role H2020 18 of the regions. Of course this had partly RDP Regulation 16 to do with the fact that the traineeship Roadshow 15 first took place in Brussels and after Functioning EIP 12 that in the Netherlands. However, till Role Regions 10 the time of the shift from Brussels to Communication 10 7 the Netherlands, regional authorities Service Point National Cooperation 6 did pay little attention to the EIP agri, Role Farmers 5 until it became partly national legisla- HLSB 4 tion via POP3. This development also Thematic Networks 3 leads to the involvement of different International Cooperation 3 actors over time; whereas the focus Focus Groups 3 first was at European levels, it evolves OGs 2 to the national or regional level. An Pilot 1 1 example is the shift in attention to- Budget Assessment of Projects 1 wards the people writing the POP3 AKIS 1 legislation plans on EIP agri. The team SIP 1 started writing in April 2013 and already on April 15th the first meeting took place in which this team and ac- Figure 18: Keywords of the Participatory Observation tions towards them were discussed, followed by a Dutch steering group.

During the 18 months of the participatory observation it became clear that the EIP had a lot of competition from other subjects in RDP. This is proven by the proposed budget division for the Dutch RDP regulation POP3 (Appendix 5). Other policy measures like the “Deltaplan Water” and the regulations regarding young farmers all need a certain amount of money. It was observed that subjects like these received more attention and were more successful in reserving money from the RDP budget since they receive a lot of attention. The regulation regarding young farmers is perceived of importance and is a form of regulation which leads to direct money on the farm. The EIP in contrast, is a regulation which is new, difficult to understand and the subject of ‘knowledge and innovation’ is not that much tangible like the young farmers regulation. Therefore, often organisations like LTO do not pri- oritise EIP agri.

Role of regions

The EIP values local processes, as already concluded in chapter 3, and therefore the role of regions of Member States is important in EIP agri. In the Netherlands the provinces will execute RDP regulation and as such have a large influence on EIP agri. During the 18 months, many discussions were held

49 about the position of the Dutch provinces regarding EIP agri, e.g. about whether the twelve provinces could all implement an individual set of rules regarding EIP agri. Organisations like LTO would rather see one policy applicable for the Netherlands in total instead of twelve different sets of rules.

Different views about the role were observed; on the one hand people valued the idea of a great share of local governments in the innovation process since local issues are better valued by local management authorities, while on the other hand provinces are distrusted to execute a policy like EIP in a proper way. This leads to a situation in which provinces were sometimes ignored or passed by when actors approached the Ministry of EZ or LTO directly.

Horizon 2020

Horizon 2020 was subject of many activities during the participatory observation. However, when analysing the development made on this subject by looking at the short description per activity given in Appendix 2, the conclusion can be drawn that Horizon 2020 remains a vague subject of which only the headlines become clear for farmers organisations. The reason for this is that Horizon 2020 is a new type of policy for farmers organisations. Its proceedings are not yet fully understood by all actors. Next to that, H2020 is the domain of researchers and research institutions, but with the EIP agri also other actors get a chance to compete for funds. This leads to a situation in which researchers and farmers who have to work together also become competitors.

An example of an observation in this respect was during a meeting about a joint fund (melkveefonds) of farmers and researchers in the dairy sector. It might be interesting to make use of the EIP agri to see whether the money of EIP and H2020 can be used as additional funding to the money already available in the melkveefonds. When talking about EIP in this context the researchers are focussing upon their research agenda, trying to get issues they consider of importance on the agenda of Hori- zon 2020. They therefore emphasised on the formation of focus groups and thematic networks. On the contrary, farmers put emphasis the forming of operational groups by bottom-up articulation of research questions and making knowledge available for the end users. This last route, which was proposed by the farmers, is following the line of thinking of the EIP agri. However, because the researchers have more knowledge of processes regarding H2020 they can more easily take the lead in innovation processes providing them the possibility to execute their path of adjusting H2020 to their research agenda.

In addition to this observation, the issue of how to reward researchers was discussed. Within univer- sities and large research institutions researchers are rewarded upon the number of publications in scientific literature they produce. The dissemination of the research results is not receiving attention. The EIP agri aims at dissemination of knowledge, i.e. making results available for practice. A system in which researchers are rewarded by for example the grade of dissemination would better fit the EIP agri.

EIP Service Point

During the traineeship in Brussels the setting up of the EIP agri Service Point was a topic which domi- nated many meetings, since the call for it was opened at that time. During the proposal writing process, it was proved that the interest for the EIP agri was widespread throughout Europe. The consortium in which LTO participated consisted of 30 partners from all over Europe. However, the starting point and intentions differed between organisations. Western European countries were for example

50 much more aiming at gaining access to research funds in order to finance new scientific research, whereas Eastern European countries joined with the intention to organise the farmers in order to come to joint initiatives applying available knowledge in practice. The Service Point could play a role in balancing between the different interests. They could offer an overview of needs and provide solutions for those needs.

4.1.2 The EIP roadshow One of the three main tasks of the traineeship was to organise an EIP agri roadshow, which was an initiative of LTO Nederland to bring the EIP agri into practice. Four identical meetings were organised, all aimed at a different agricultural sector. Stakeholders from the sector were invited to discuss the possibilities of EIP agri and possible applications. First a presentation was given about the functioning of the EIP agri, then after a short break a discussion was organised with the participants. For a more detailed overview of one of the roadshow meetings see Appendix 3. The goal of the roadshow was to communicate the concept of EIP agri and to make people enthusiastic to participate in the EIP agri.

The roadshow had a considerable influence on the development of EIP agri in the Netherlands, which was proven by the amount of reactions and questions considering the roadshow. Many regions and almost all agricultural sectors were interested in organising a roadshow meeting, which proved that the concept of EIP agri was getting attention in the regions and sectors. For LTO, the organisation of the roadshow was beneficial because it provided them a central position as they were considered experts in EIP agri. The stakeholders participating in the roadshow meetings replied in different ways to EIP proposals. One of the reactions was repeated often: ‘the EIP agri and its way of operating is not new for the Netherlands’. The system in which different actors cooperate in order to fulfil innovation processes is already well-known, e.g. the earlier mentioned golden triangle. However, the way in which the EIP agri is organised, being integrated in both European agricultural and research policy provides new, more elaborated chances whereas for example more funds become available and international cooperation is supported.

A second issue observed during the roadshow was that the EIP is a difficult concept to understand. The many groups in EIP, the abbreviations and different budgets distract from the real goal, i.e. building networks in order to bridge between farming and research. Examples of confusion are the Focus Groups and Operational Groups. The EIP roadshow aimed at the formation of Operational Groups; however, during the meetings the concept of Focus Groups was often receiving much more attention. The first reason for this was related to the fact that Focus Groups were already started whereas Operational Groups could only start when POP3 started functioning. The second reason was that Focus Groups have set subjects to work on, for example Integrated Pest Management. People have an opinion about the subject and it is easier to react upon such a construction.

A third observation made during the roadshow meetings was the critique on the system of research proposal writing and the assessment of proposals. Statements were for example ‘I know what I want. But when I see how this is written down by research, I do not recognise myself in there.’ And ‘I am afraid that many of the proposals will stumble on the assessment which is executed by experts with vested interests. Those vested interests do not need anything new; they need controversial ideas regarding their system’. These observations are closely related to the earlier mentioned difference in practices between research and farming. During the roadshow meetings it led to discussion between researchers and farmers about the different roles these actors play.

51 4.2 Workshop In the process of constructing the EIP agri many actors play a role. An expert workshop was organised in order to bring some of these actors together to discuss the EIP agri. The workshop was conducted as described in chapter 2. In this section the results of the workshop are presented. The data of the workshop provides input for executing the third step of the hermeneutical cycle, i.e. the text. This section is divided into sub sections considering the most important subjects mentioned during the workshop, i.e. RDP, innovation, internal obstructions, trust, and communication.

RDP

During the first round of the workshop problems regarding the EIP agri were defined. Similar to the participatory observation, the subject of RDP was debated extensively during the workshop. This is both proven by the amount of time the code of RDP was given and its relative importance. The reason for this domination is again the EIP agri being part of the second pillar of the CAP. During the workshop the experts raised questions about how to implement the EIP in the best way, considering for example the selection of experts for the assessment of project proposals and the available budget. The problems regarding RDP were considered technical problems which could be overcome relatively easy with technical solutions like a certain budget or the decision about how many experts need to assess the proposals.

However, in some of the identified problems politics are involved. Vested interests and ideas are influencing the forming of the RDP and put pressure on the EIP. This became clear through codes as strongholds, existing interests, and agriculture vs. research). The word politics was explicitly avoided by the experts, however as a result of the different backgrounds of the experts, the contradictions on e.g. how to spend money in the second pillar were still influencing the debate.

The code ‘agriculture vs. research’ has a lot to do with the discussion about the EIP being part of the second pillar of the CAP, as described before. However, this discussion about vested interests is not only a political discussion. Whereas the EIP aims at building bridges between research and practice, it as such aims at building bridges between two different worlds being institutionalised in a different way.

Innovation

The definition of innovation was highly debated during the workshop, since it is partly a methodo- logical issue. The opening question of the workshop was to define innovation suiting the EIP and all stakeholders present. As shown in section 3.1 innovation can be defined in many ways, and also during the workshop it was hard to agree on one definition. Questions were raised whether it is useful to have one definition of innovation, since innovation is considered differently in different contexts. When innovation is defined strictly, experimentation and new ideas do not have a chance.

However, the discussion about definitions was also related to the total operations of the EIP agri. Farmers and researchers are looking for definitions of what EIP agri exactly entails. The amount of freedom people get in order to determine what subject to work on and with which people is not something they are used to when considering governmental innovation subsidies.

52 Internal obstructions

Internal obstructions within organisations determine the course of the EIP agri. Both the representatives of LTO and IPO, and to a lesser extent those of Netwerk Platteland, identified that they encountered problems within their organisations regarding the EIP. For example, within LTO it proved to be difficult to activate people on EIP agri. This has several reasons, like a lack of knowledge about the concept of EIP, and short-term versus long-term thinking of organisations about their willingness to invest in EIP since there is a limited amount of time available and many subjects ask for attention. This leads to a situation in which EIP is considered of little importance and remains a relatively unknown concept, which makes it difficult to create a foundation for the work on EIP and EIP agri within organisations.

Trust

During the setup of the EIP agri trust plays a role in many processes. Bringing together different actors to stimulate cooperation can lead to problems, like those identified in the section about participatory observation. A basis of trust is required to overcome these issues. Introducing a new concept like EIP agri also requires trust, since the actors have to trust the concept itself before starting working on it.

Trust also plays a role between actors, e.g. between the government and other actors. The EIP requires a retreating government, i.e. leaving other actors steering the process, which implies the government requires other ways of monitoring and evaluation. When selecting experts in order to judge project applications, trust is also needed from all parties. The government needs to trust the right projects are selected, while farmers and other applicants need to trust experts are selected on the basis of their expertise in innovation. The experts in their turn need to trust the applicants will execute the projects in a proper way.

Communication

In order to build trust and understanding about the EIP agri forms of communication should be used. However, communication is also seen as an important factor causing problems for the setup of EIP. The representative of the European Commission for example, described the problems encountered by the Commission when explaining the concept of EIP. As shown in the codes, the EIP is a difficult concept to fully understand, and the Commission used complicated figures (see Figure 12) to explain the concept. Some of these figures received too much attention, resulting in different understandings of part of the concept of EIP agri. This situation shows communication should be used very care- fully, since it is easy to misinterpret and misunderstand issues. A lack of communication can also be a problem, resulting in the concept of EIP agri is not fully understood in certain regions in Europe, causing difficulties in cooperation.

53 Figure 19: Quantitative results of round 1 of the expert workshop

Round 1 - Problems Round 1 - Problems - Relatively

Code: amount of times mentioned Code: amount of times mentioned - relatively

Pillar 2 16 Pillar 2 12,24% Definition innovation 13 Definition innovation 10,35% Internal obstacles 9 Internal obstacles 4,01% Golden Triangle 8 Judge 3,87% Actors 7 Trust 3,61% Judge 6 Golden Triangle 3,20% Agriculture vs research 5 Difficult concept 3,16% Knowledge transfer 5 Actors 2,87% Innovation policy 5 Knowledge transfer 2,53% Asking questions 4 Experiments 2,42% Enterpreneurial skills 4 Agriculture vs research 2,20% Knowledge cycle 4 Budget 2,16% Experiments 4 Cofinancing 1,78% Communication 4 Interest society 1,64% Trust 3 Strongholds 1,59% Application of knowledge 3 Communication 1,55% OG 3 Innovation policy 1,33% Difficult concept 3 Short vs long term 1,33% Long process 3 Asking questions 1,29% Juridical obstacles 3 Responsibility 1,27% Cofinancing 3 Application of knowledge 1,20% Adaptive 3 Name EIP 1,00% Responsibility 2 Knowledge cycle 0,91% Name EIP 2 Juridical obstacles 0,84% Short vs long term 2 Experts 0,83% Experts 2 OG 0,76% Budget 2 Extisting interests 0,74% Strongholds 2 Enterpreneurial skills 0,71% Extisting interests 2 Long process 0,68% Interest society 2 0,43% Adaptive 54 Figure 20: Quantitative results of round 2 of the expert workshop

Round 2 - Solutions Round 2 - Solutions - Relatively

Code: amount of times mentioned Code: amount of times mentioned - relatively

Actors 14 Actors 10,68%

Example 9 Role Europe 6,80%

Role Europe 8 Communication 5,51%

Regions 6 Example 5,25%

Target group 6 Target group 4,91%

Communication 6 Regions 4,02%

Adoption by 'figurehead' 5 Administrative environment 3,58%

Vision 4 Experiment 2,60%

Difficult concept 4 Adoption by 'figurehead' 2,26%

Administrative environment 4 New structure 2,07%

Way of communication 3 Vision 1,96%

Experiment 3 Role government 1,81%

Topsectors 2 Difficult concept 1,59%

Role government 2 Topsectors 1,39%

New structure 2 Judge 1,36%

Fragment story 2 Evaluation 1,09%

Movie 2 Fragment story 1,04%

Evaluation 2 Way of communication 1,03%

Complex instrument 2 Complex instrument 0,95%

Judge 2 Movie 0,85% 55 4.3 Interpretations During the second round of the workshop solutions were sought for the identified problems described in section 4.2. Figure 20 presents the codes representing the solutions. In this section these solutions are further elaborated on by executing step three of the hermeneutical process, the dialogue. In this section the different parts of the thesis (I & II) are brought together and interpretation is given to the results.

4.3.1 Vested interests In this sub section the problem of vested interests and the roles of different actors will be solved according to the theory provided in chapter 3 and the results shown in sections 4.1 and 4.2. Based on that, recommendations will be given. Table 7 shows this schematically.

Problem Solution theory Solution workshop Recommendation Politics and - Gather multiple per- “One of the preconditions Execute an actor vested inter- spectives from a range should be that you involve analysis at every stage ests determine of stakeholders in- the right persons on the of the innovation course of EIP volved in the issue right levels who can take process agri (Holling 1978) action afterwards” - Create opportunity for Leadership is needed self-organisation, and “Entrepreneurs stay cen- from agricultural en- build networks of mu- tral in the EIP agri” trepreneurs tual interaction that foster trust and cooperation (Berkes, Colding and Folke 2003)

Table 7: Vested interests

The most important solution to overcome problems like lack of trust and vested interests can be found in the field of actors. Involving the right actors is important for creating a situation in which the EIP agri can function. When some actors are excluded from the process, it becomes more difficult to fulfil the innovation process.

Problems regarding the dissemination of the innovation for example, may occur because actors cannot recognise themselves in the innovation. The theories of innovation and adaptive governance both emphasise the involvement of stakeholders. The classification of actors according to Rogers (1983) provides an overview of who to involve at which stage in the process. The theory of adaptive governance emphasises the notion of participative processes in which the right actors are involved at the right moment. During both the workshop and the participatory observation, it was identified that in both processes of policy preparation and execution, the actors involved should not exclude other parties having a stake in the EIP. Therefore, every actor was allowed to join the EIP roadshow. How- ever, this still is a difficult process since vested interests often determine the process. LTO for example, represents around 50% of the Dutch farmers, while the remaining 50% is represented by other organisations like DDB and NVV. It could be the case that only one of the organisations is involved in an innovation process, while this is not desirable since knowledge sources are excluded from the process. Next to that, innovation is considered differently by different actors, as concluded in the previous chapter, leading to a situation in which the desired outcomes of innovations also differ.

56 A solution can be found in a clear division of roles between actors and the possibility for them to organise themselves. This will be partly identified by the RDP proposals. The EIP agri aims at agricultural entrepreneurs, which are the ones who need to take the lead by organising themselves into OGs. All other organisations involved have a supporting and facilitating role, which are of high importance, especially in the starting phases of EIP agri. Organisations like LTO, representing agricultural entrepreneurs, could initiate the start of OGs in order to set an example of the functioning of such an OG. As such, the internal obstructions as identified in the workshop; like a lack of time and knowledge, could be solved, and vested interests will become subordinate to the interests of the farmers.

In all stages of innovation processes like the EIP, different actors play a role and every time the question should be asked whether the right actors are involved at the right moment. In order to determine this, actor analyses can be conducted by the leaders or innovation brokers of e.g. OGs and TNs. These kinds of analyses help to provide an overview of the different actors present and their interests.

4.3.2 Concept of EIP In this sub section the problem of EIP as a difficult concept will be solved according to the theory provided in chapter 3 and the results shown in sections 4.1 and 4.2. Based on that, recommendations will be given. Table 8 shows this schematically.

Problem Solution theory Solution workshop Recommendation EIP as difficult - Understand in- “… it is of importance that we Find a form of communi- concept to teractions with provide in good examples to cation which enables to understand the environment convince actors that this is communicate examples (Glouberman worthwhile”. in an attractive way. 2003). “…, everybody is only interested in easy and pleasant information… a movie could be a good solution for this … also of importance is that the right person says something at the right time”

“…maybe the EIP is too difficult to explain in one time?”

Table 8: Concept of EIP

The problem of the EIP being a difficult concept to understand has been mentioned several times. Because the EIP agri will operate in the contexts of the existing policies CAP and H2020, it is important to know both policies and understand their procedures. Next to that, the basic functioning of the EIP with its own groups and structure is not easy, which was proven by discussions about definitions.

57 There was not only a discussion about the definition of innovation as described in the previous chapter, but also about the definition of Operational Groups and Focus Groups. Especially during the participatory observation, the definition and composition of OGs were highly debated. However, the composition of an OG is hard to explain since it consists of those persons required to complete the innovation process discussed within the OG. The subjects or innovation themes discussed within OGs were also highly debated and hard to explain, since OGs are not predetermined but could be started by every entrepreneur questioning an innovation theme. According to the theory, innovation requires space for operating in its first phase, which is the case since entrepreneurs are free to start an OG. However, in practice this is more difficult since people look for themes and guidelines. The Focus Groups which started in 2013 and 2014 for example, were established about predetermined themes, which influenced the discussion of the roadshow by implying these themes would be guidelines in coming years.

Forms of good communication, i.e. making use of examples and the way of bringing a message, can help overcome these problems. During the workshop the concept of communication played an important role, both in the first and second round. The use of examples was especially emphasised, e.g. one farmer telling others how he fulfilled an innovation process. By doing so, the concept of EIP is translated to practice. Such an approach could also have helped during the roadshow, where many times the question ‘What does this mean for me in practice?’ was asked. As such, the way in which a story is presented and by whom is of importance. An example of a way to make information easily and nicely accessible is showing a movie, which gives opportunities to give the word to different people having some influence. They could serve as opinion leaders or ambassadors of projects, e.g. Secretary of State or president of LTO. This will motivate people to start and complete an innovation process.

A possible form of communication which was mentioned many times during the workshop was a short movie with examples of how EIP agri should work. This idea was valued by all experts. However when creating such a movie one has to take into account what message to bring, in what way and by who. In the case of the EIP, when the province of Drenthe is financing a movie, showing examples from Drenthe en providing a stage to a deputy from Drenthe, the movie cannot be easily used in the province of Brabant because farmers from Brabant may not identify themselves in the movie.

More forms of communication can be used next to a movie. During the workshop and from own experiences in the participatory observation it became clear that people benefit from personal contact and exchange of information when learning something. Therefore study trips to for example demon- stration farms or presentations by front runners in innovation processes may also contribute to innovation processes. This role may also be fulfilled by the national support unit for POP and the EIP service point in Brussels. They could organise this exchange between people.

The problem of the EIP agri being a too difficult concept could also be solved by being more selective of whom to provide with what kind of information, which could avoid distractions during discussions. LTO had chosen this approach once during the roadshow, by leaving out the concept of Focus Groups. However, this was not communicated to people who already knew from the Focus Groups, like the representative of the provinces and some researchers. The attempt failed, but the lesson was learned that when one is selective in sending information one should tune this with other stakeholders who already know the concept.

58 4.3.3 Agriculture vs. research In this sub section the problem different worlds of agriculture and research will be solved according to the theory provided in chapter 3 and the results shown in sections 4.1 and 4.2. Based on that, recommendations will be given. Table 9 shows this schematically.

Problem Solution theory Solution workshop Recommendation The worlds of - Build networks of mu- “… create a level playing Create a system in agriculture and tual interaction that fos- field, make use of each which the dissemina- research are far ter trust and coopera- other’s qualities and do tion of research is re- apart tion (Berkes, Colding not become each other’s warded and Folke 2003) competitors” (Glouberman 2003) Multi Actor Projects (Axelrod 2000). - Promote effective sur- Make use of existing roundings of adaptive structures cooperation (Axelrod 2000).

Table 9: Agriculture vs. research Closely related to the first statement in this section is the problem that the worlds of agriculture and research are two very different worlds, which are organised in their own way. The EIP agri aims to close the gap between research and farming practice by finding answers to questions from practice. As mentioned during the workshop and the roadshow, researchers and farmers think in different ways. The current system of rewards for researchers is not aimed at the practical application of solutions found in executing research, which leads to a situation without dissemination of research results. Also, when scientific research is involved, interests of researchers and farmers may not match. Whereas farmers need a practical solution to apply in practice, scientific researchers need publications in scientific literature.

In order to overcome this problem, a new system of rewards for researchers could be introduced, e.g. a system in which researchers are rewarded for the degree of dissemination of their knowledge. Such a system should provide in an incentive for researchers to invest in dissemination. An example of such an incentive could be to reserve a certain amount of money from the research in order to spend on dissemination activities when the research itself is finished.

The introduction of the Multi Actor Projects can also form a solution to this problem. As described in chapter 3.3.2 Multi Actor Projects will aim at the problems identified in EIP. When the process of innovation of EIP agri (as described in box 2) will be followed, the calls for tenders in H2020 considering Multi Actor Projects will aim at research which overcomes the problems of farmers. These calls are automatically aiming at forms of research of which the results can easily be applied in practice.

The system as described above will mainly be applicable in situations where scientific research is involved. However, applied research also needs to emphasise the dissemination of results. This is partly organised via the obligations OGs have to fulfil in order to be financed via RDP, but the role of applied researchers or even innovation brokers should also be emphasised by training them how to disseminate results. Next to that, dissemination could be organised via already existing structures. In

59 the Netherlands, different structures are in place in almost every agricultural sector to disseminate research results, e.g. the organisations ‘Melkveeacademie’ in the dairy sector and ‘Varkensnet’ in the pig sector.

4.3.4 Role of different governments In this sub section the problem of the unclear role of different governments will be solved according to the theory provided in chapter 3 and the results shown in sections 4.1 and 4.2. Based on that, recommendations will be given. Table 10 shows this schematically.

Problem Solution theory Solution workshop Recommendation The role of the - Understand local “The EIP agri is easier to ex- Local governments different gov- conditions, plain in a region and there should be used where ernments is strengths, and assets can be made better and and when they can be unclear (Glouberman 2003). more use of the concept in a used best. - Promote variation region…” and experimentation Involve assessment (Berkes, Colding and “… government wants to bodies from the be- Folke 2003) take a risk with this particu- ginning. (Glouberman 2003) lar innovation project be- (Holling 1978). cause the projects fits with Adoption by a high - Balance exploitation the vision of the EIP… the level (government) of existing ideas and assessment of the policy representative. strategies, and ex- should take this starting ploration of new point into account…” ideas (Axelrod 2000) - Monitoring and cor- “The assessment of innova- rective mechanisms tion projects has a lot to do should not be post with qualitative assessment ad hoc additions af- … focusing on process as- ter implementation sessment instead of output (Holling 1978). assessment.”

Table 10: Role of different governments The role of the different governments and especially the role of local or regional governments involved in the EIP agri was considered a problem in the first round of the workshop and in the roadshow, in particular the role of the provinces.

Governments are considered actors in the process, both forming and executing, of the EIP. The role government have to play, like at European level or at regional level was heavily debated. On the one hand governments should retrieve themselves from the process following the theory of adaptive governance, because top-down policies are no longer desirable. As such, local governments like regions should get a larger role. This process can be found in establishing the EIP. However, during the workshop questions were raised whether regional governments were capable of handling the EIP. The administrative environment of Dutch regional governments is not always capable handling complex policies, which is both due to the impotence of regional government officials and the political

60 structure imposing elections every four years resulting in changing management authorities. How- ever, the provinces will have to execute the EIP agri, so solutions are needed.

According to the theory of adaptive governance, multilevel governance is of importance to fulfil innovation processes. Local issues can best be handled by local groups, which implies that local governmental bodies have to fulfil an important role in identifying problems. Unfortunately, concrete solutions for the problems regarding the role of the provinces or other governmental levels were not offered during the second round of the workshop. However, during the participatory observation it became clear that regional governments can fulfil a large role in e.g. the creation of understanding about the EIP agri, like in the provinces of Limburg, Drenthe and Noord-Holland where such activities are organised. As a result of these active governments other stakeholders also become active, e.g. in the province of Drenthe where an OG is started even before POP3 opens.

Higher level governments have an important role to play when it comes to variation of projects. Ac- cording to the theory of adaptive governance, variation should be promoted in order to create resilience. Therefore, higher level governments have an important role to play to ensure variation. A possibility could be that national governments install a coordination body to guarantee projects are not done twice in a Member State. The EIP Service Point in Brussels fulfils this role at European level to ensure variation among Member States.

During the workshop it was recommended that the accountability of governments should be organised in a different way. As the theory of adaptive governance promotes, room for experiment should be provided in innovation processes, which also allows them to fail. As such, public money could be invested in projects without having returns. Government officials will then have a different role, whereas they will have a controlling and monitoring position and leave room for innovation and failure. In order to create such a situation, the evaluation could possibly be emphasised differently. In- stead of evaluation the EIP on its direct return, it should be evaluated on the process of selection. Having many projects failed could be caused by wrong determinants of selection.

As an extension to this, the role of the assessment bodies for governmental organisations was also discussed. Those bodies could already be involved during the setup of the EIP in order to determine the assessment criteria of the policy beforehand. However, this should not lead to a situation in which assessment bodies determine the process of innovation. Therefore, the accountability of processes should be organised such that governments become able to withdraw themselves partially from a process. This can be achieved by high level government representatives, e.g. a provincial deputy, a director general or the Secretary of State of Economic Affairs, adopting certain projects by giving approval and emphasising its importance. By doing so, room is created for lower level government representatives to invest time and money in an innovation project.

61 5 Conclusion This thesis started with the following research question:

‘In which way contributes the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability to innovation in the agricultural sector?’

In order to come to an answer to this question, this thesis analysed the EIP agri by making use of the theory of adaptive governance. Adaptive governance is a form of governance which can deal with complex systems like innovation processes. The two parts of this thesis provide two different views upon the EIP agri. From the first theoretical part, the desk study, it becomes clear that the EIP agri fits within the concept of adaptive governance. The four key characteristics of adaptive governance; resilience, multi level governance, collaboration between actors and room for experiment, are all to be found in the EIP agri. The conclusion can therefore be drawn that the EIP agri is in theory a very good policy for the purpose it serves; i.e. stimulating innovation. However, when examining the EIP agri in practice, like done in the second part of this research, different problems arise.

Too difficult concept

The most important problem is that the EIP agri is a too difficult concept. Actors have trouble understanding the functioning of the EIP agri. The many different groups, abbreviations, budgets, proceedings etcetera lead to a situation in which actors become distracted from what the EIP agri is about; innovation at farm level.

New forms of communication about the EIP agri may solve this problem. During the expert workshop the use of examples of other innovative projects was emphasised, in order to have actors seeing the EIP agri in perspective more easily, and translating for themselves ‘What does the EIP agri mean for me?’ During the workshop some suggestions, like a movie, were already made in order to realise suitable forms of communications regarding the EIP agri. An important feature of communication is the person or organisation who is distributing the information. In the case of an informational movie, it should be considered which party will produce the movie, by which party it will be financed and by which party it will be shown. Communication tools should be pre-evaluated extensively in order to consider whether the tools fit their purpose.

Unclear which actors should be involved

Closely related to the previous problem is the indistinctness about which actors need to be involved at what moment. The description of Rogers (1983) made already clear that in the different moments of the innovation process different actors can play a role. The EIP agri aims to bring innovative actors together in Operational Groups, which need to fulfil the innovation process. According to the legislation on EIP agri OGs may consist of all relevant actors. This means that every OG will have a different composition, depending on the innovation question they aim to answer. In theory this provides the much needed space for innovation. However, in practice actors have difficulty to give meaning to this.

Again this problem may be solved by other forms of communication. The use of examples can again provide a lot of clarity. However, during the participatory observation, it became clear that when making use of examples people tend to think along the lines of the examples. “They did it like this,

62 with those people, so we will act like they did”. However, that is not what innovation processes need, since they need new ways along which people act. The provided freedom of the EIP agri is therefore a gift as well as a problem.

Research vs. farming

As already concluded, the EIP agri is a process in which many stakeholders play a role with different interests. Two of the most important groups of actors in the EIP agri are farmers and researchers, who need to cooperate in order to fulfil the innovation processes in the EIP agri. From practice it became clear that the worlds of research and farming are far apart, they operate in very different ways. However, in order to achieve a common goal, like an innovation, a common form of commitment is needed. Researchers and farmers should cooperate more and in better ways while being supported by government to do so.

This approach can be compared with the idea of the Golden Triangle. When the three parties act together they can achieve an innovation process. However, this only works if all parties share a common vision and therefore have a common goal. The starting point of the EIP agri should be that entrepreneurs stay central. They need to take the lead and determine the course of the innovation process while being facilitated by other actors.

Government

The last big issue which influences the EIP agri is the role of local governments. Questions are raised whether local governments may be able to execute a policy like EIP agri, in the Netherlands the provinces will have to fulfil this role. There is a dichotomy in the way the provinces will have to act. On the one hand, they will manage the money in RDP from which OGs will be financed, but on the other hand they may not influence the process of innovation because OGs have to find their own innovation question and go their own way in the process of answering this question. However, provinces have to decide which projects to fund and which not; they can therefore have a considerable influence on the course of the EIP agri. The problem may arise that provinces will only fund those projects that are matching with the interests of the provinces, for example, in Brabant only pig farmers will receive funding and dairy farmers are excluded, regardless of their innovation question.

Next to this dichotomy, questions were raised during the workshop and the participatory observation whether local government officials are capable to execute this policy. Their often locally oriented view and little knowledge of agricultural practice may conflict with the broader challenges EIP agri aims to find solutions for.

A possible solution for these problems may be found in higher administrative levels. When creating a point of coordination at national level for the EIP agri, local government can be supported from there. In this support or coordination office different stakeholders can take a seat, creating a situation in which all stakeholders remain affiliated with the EIP agri. This solution is already partly offered by the POP3 proposals in the form of the creation of a National Support Unit for POP.

Institutions

The EIP agri is a new institution and will regulate agricultural innovation in a new way. As stated in chapter 3.1.4, institutions provide a context and normative basis for the actions of actors. Actors are

63 enabled or hindered in their actions by institutions, in this case the EIP agri. This new way is working well in theory. However, in practice a lot of indistinctness remains about the concept of EIP agri itself and the stakeholders around the EIP agri. This needs to be clarified, but a form of this indistinctness is also needed. Resulting from its structure, although unclear, the EIP will enable innovative behaviour. When for example prescribing the composition of OGs the problem of indistinctness of who to involve is solved, but the innovation process will be damaged because every single innovation process requires other actors. The institution EIP agri therefore needs indistinctness to a certain extent.

The behaviour of actors operating in an institutional environment can be explained by making use of the logic of appropriateness or the logic of consequentiality. This is desirable because it gives insight in why actors act in certain ways and thereby influence the course of the EIP agri.

Following the logic of appropriateness, actors will operate in innovation processes of EIP agri in a way that they fit into existing structures. If actors want to form an OG, they will look for partners which they already know and search for existing structures to operate in. However, innovation is about change and experimentation, looking for boundaries and new forms of operation. The logic of appropriateness is therefore not suitable to explain innovation processes under EIP agri.

Actors in the EIP agri should also not act in order to solely maximise own benefits, common goals as set by the EU by OGs need to be achieved. Like stated, if common goals are absent, real cooperation between actors cannot occur. The logic of consequentiality, aiming at maximising own benefits, will therefore also not solely explain innovation processes.

‘Innovation means change and requires constant adaptation, which lead to new innovation, etcetera’, states chapter 3.4 (see figure 16; the innovation to adaptation cycle). Therefore, when explaining the behaviour of actors in a context of institutions stimulating innovation like EIP agri a new logic is required, i.e. the “Logic of Adaptiveness”. The logic of adaptiveness is based upon the notion that innovation processes can be steered by making use of the concept of adaptive governance. Resil- ience, multilevel governance, multi stakeholder involvement and room for experimentation determine the success or failure of innovation processes. The EIP agri has succeeded in incorporating the notions of adaptive governance. When acting according to the logic of adaptiveness, actors ask themselves the following questions:

1) What is the context?

Every innovation question is different, it depends upon the sector in which the question is asked (e.g. dairy), by whom the question is asked (e.g. a farmer or a veterinarian), and at which level of scale the question is aimed (e.g. phosphate questions vs. ground bonded questions). The required innovation determines the type of action; what innovation question needs to be answered? This question differs from the first question of the logic of appropriateness because the question is not aimed at the context of the institution EIP agri, but aimed at the surrounding of the innovation to be performed. The institution EIP agri will become relevant when the context of the innovation is clear. The EIP agri will adapt itself to the context by providing this space for different interpretations.

2) Who are my partners?

The entrepreneur asking the innovation question needs to determine the partners with who to cooperate. Innovation processes in the institution EIP agri are based upon the notion of cooperation

64 between relevant actors. The context of step one determines the partners for step two. This step differs from the other two logics because the question is context bounded and cooperation between actors stays central instead of the individual.

3) How can we develop ourselves given this context?

Innovation is about development and change. Given the context identified in step one and together with the partners the innovation process will need to be completed over time. Actors should together determine what kind of development is required and how this development should be achieved. The innovation should be determined.

4) Do what is most adaptive

According to the steps before, actions are determined based upon the context, partners and innovation. These actions are executed during the innovation process. As a result the context of step one will be changed by the innovation.

Logic of appropriateness Logic of consequentiality Logic of adaptiveness 1 What kind of situation is this? What are my alternatives? What is the context? 2 Who am I? What are my values? Who are my partners? 3 How appropriate are the different What are the effects of the How can we develop our- actions for me in this situation? alternatives for my values? selves given this context? 4 Do what is most appropriate Choose the alternatives with Do what is most adaptive the best effects

Table 11: Questions asked when following the logic of adaptiveness The logic of adaptiveness explains the process of constant development and adaptation, which is the result of innovation. Because of this constant development the context in which actors operate constantly changes. Therefore, the logic of adaptiveness is, like the cycle of innovation and adaptation, an ongoing process. When step four is completed, the context of step one has been changed and the process may start over again. This constant change requires a type of policy (or institution) which is able to cope with this change, or in other words, is resilient. The logic of adaptiveness changes the thinking about what type of innovation policy is most effective, the key characteristics of adaptive governance need to become central concepts when designing innovation policy, only than a truly adaptive policy can be build. By letting the context determine the role of the institution EIP agri the EIP agri has proven to be adaptive.

Contribution

The EIP agri will contribute to innovation. Innovation processes are built upon cooperation and different actors have different functions. When recognising this, a basis of trust and understanding can be created in which innovation processes can be fulfilled and the agricultural sector is assisted in overcoming the challenges it faces.

65 6 Discussion This section will discuss the possibilities of this thesis and its limitations, considering its context. It will be mainly focused at the concept of adaptive governance and the validity of this thesis.

Adaptive governance

The theory of adaptive governance stays central in this thesis. Adaptive governance can help provide understanding of innovation processes. By checking upon the characteristics of adaptive governance one can see how and where innovation policies can intervene.

Multi level governance

An important notion of adaptive governance is the multi-level nature of governance. Local processes are valued because of the ability of local actors to encounter local problems. In the EIP these local groups are formed by Operational Groups. However, not all local groups are capable of being adaptive. Fabricus (2007) identified key internal and external conditions for effective local adaptive governance. Highly motivated leadership, skilled members, and access to resources, knowledge, and enabling policies are considered of importance when setting up local groups. In the EIP agri the process of forming Operational Groups is not steered. Entrepreneurs need to take the lead and decide what path to follow. Questions however can be raised whether the entrepreneurs are able to make sure these key conditions are present in their OGs. To overcome this problem innovation brokers may play a role, but also here it is not sure whether these brokers may be able to assure these conditions.

Room for experiment

The EIP agri aims to be a resilient policy. By creating room for experiment, best practices can be identified for the way in which EIP should operate. The way in which the policy is used may therefore change over time and differ in every region. However, such a form of policy is difficult to implement in a situation of multilevel governance (Rouillard 2012). The EIP agri operates at three different levels, i.e. local, national, and European level. If the conditions for the policy change at one level, the other levels are affected by this change. However, due to high interdependency of the different levels, this may lead to problems. If one local group changes its practices, it affects the practices on the other levels. Therefore, the freedom of stimulating experimentation may lead to a situation in which it becomes impossible to execute the EIP agri in such a way that the EU challenges are tackled.

Policy proposals

The desk study and the empirical research in particular claim to provide an ex ante overview of the EIP agri. However, the preparation phase of the EIP agri is still going on and the policy proposals for RDP are still under construction when this thesis is finalised. This has led to a situation in which still uncertainties remain about the EIP agri and it functioning, e.g. the policy proposals in POP3 seem to create this room for experiment but it is still unclear (beginning of March) whether the juridical departments of the provinces and the ministry of EZ will accept this. Therefore, the conclusion that the EIP agri will function in a good way may be premature.

Logic of adaptability

66 The combination of research done on innovation and adaptive governance provided new insights in how to develop innovation policies. The logic of adaptability provides new insights on where innovation policies may intervene. This research may therefore be a first step into this understanding. A first step is made into understanding the actions of actors and the proof was delivered that a new logic is required in order to explain innovation processes but if this logic is best may be questionable. This has especially to do with the fact that this logic comes forth out of the EIP agri. Further research may focus on applicability of the logic of adaptability in other (innovation) contexts.

Validity

This thesis consists of two parts of research. First a theoretical part was provided in which the EIP agri was compared to theories of innovation and the theory of adaptive governance. Second, empirical research was conducted providing practical insights in the EIP agri. A comparison was made between the EIP agri in theory and the EIP agri in practice, leading to recommendations and a theoretical notion on the explanation of behaviour of actors.

Theories of adaptive governance & innovation

The desk study centred on the theory of adaptive governance, in which four key characteristics were identified, i.e. resilience, multi-level governance, multi stakeholder involvement and room for experiment. The characteristics were also identified by Nelson et al. (2007). However, many scholars have identified many characteristics influencing adaptive governance, resulting in no single definition for the theory of adaptive governance. The use of these characteristics may therefore have excluded features from the scope of this research which also have a considerable influence on the development of adaptive systems. For example the concept of sustainability is not taken into account. Adap- tive governance is often connected to this concept because of its nature in ecological systems. Many of the challenges faced by agriculture are related to the concept of sustainability. Therefore innovation in agriculture is expected to focus on achieving more sustainability also. Further research might take these combinations between adaptive governance and innovation in agriculture into account.

The theories of innovation are also manifold. The many definitions of innovation already prove the diversity in thinking about innovation. In this thesis the theory as provided by Rogers (1983) plays an important role. This choice was made because of the recognition of Rogers as one of the first think- ers on innovation processes and his ideas being accepted by many scholars. However, more modern thinking of innovation may have developed itself into even better understandings of innovation processes.

Traineeship

In the empirical research issues of validity become of even more importance. The participatory observation was combined with a traineeship. The participatory observation lasted for 18 months, which provided a lot of data of which the internal validity is high. The activities undertaken never stood alone, they followed upon each other. A constant process of learning and development took place in which the concept of EIP agri was better understood after every activity. Because of the nature of the traineeship the focus of the participatory observation was on policy implementation from the perspective of a farmers’ organisation. This led to a situation in which every observation made was coming forth of the function of being trainee of LTO. This could have two possible results, i.e. on

67 the one hand other actors could have been selective in what information to share and on the other hand influencing my understanding of the EIP agri. The aim of the traineeship was to come to an EIP which is suitable and workable for farmers. For example, RDP regulations affect farmers in their daily practice and LTO has ideas about whether this is good or bad. Another example is the role of the regions which has an influence on how easy entrepreneurs can get access to financing or other support for EIP actions. This led to a situation in which I was also defending other interests and therefore was not totally independent.

However, performing as a trainee also provided chances to take part in processes and activities which would otherwise not have been accessible. Thereby being a real actor having a stake in the process led to a situation in which real insights in the process are provided instead of a simulated situation.

Workshop

The EIP expert workshop was a success in the sense that the experts were very willing to join and share their visions. The combination of experts was unique, especially when considering this was ‘only’ a master thesis workshop. However, regarding the design of the workshop some comments need to be noted. The first was the lacking of a group of actors, there was no representative from research present during the workshop. Several persons were invited but no one could make it at the date of the workshop. The experiences of the participatory observation were partly overcoming this lack, but it would have been good to have a representative of research present in the workshop.

Next to this did the second round of the workshop did not really go into depth on the problems identified during the first round. The concept of communication was debated extensively but the goal of the second round, coming to multiple recommendations for the EIP, was not achieved. As result, personal interpretation dominates section 4.3.

During the workshop a lot of emphasis was laid upon the importance of communication. The production of an information movie was considered an option for communication about the EIP agri. This thesis does not provide in a communication plan for the EIP agriculture, but it became clear that there is a demand for such a plan. It might be interesting to develop a communication plan for the EIP agri. The results of this thesis could provide a first basis for such a plan.

Focus of the research

The executed research has a very Dutch approach as result of the empirical research. The EIP has is as European policy dependent of more factors like RDPs in other Member States. A more European orientation during the research would have led to a more European applicability.

Next to this could it be of value to further compare the EIP agri to other (innovation) policy measures under the provisions of the CAP. For example during the participatory observation many times the link was made between collectives in agricultural nature management and operational groups under EIP agri. It might be of interest to check whether the different initiatives under the CAP provisions may reinforce each other. The same accounts for the Dutch innovation policies. Many organisations have already laid emphasis on a combination between the EIP agri and the Dutch Top sector policy or regional innovation subsidies.

69 References

Agricola, H.J., R.M.A. Hoefs, A.M. van Doorn, R.A. Smidt, J. van Os. Landschappelijke effecten van ontwikkeling in de landbouw. Wageningen: Alterra, 2010.

AgriHolland. Agriholland Cijfers. 2014. http://www.agriholland.nl/cijfers/ (geopend Januari 29, 2014).

Alvesson M., K. Sköldberg. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2000.

Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R. „Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning.” Global Environmental Change 18 (2008): 86-98.

Arnouts, R. Regional nature governance in the Netherlands. Four decades of governance modes and shifts in the Utrechtse Heuvelrug en Midden-Brabant. PhD- thesis. Wageningen: Wageningen University, 2010.

Avermaete, T., J. Viaene, E. Morgan en N. Crawford. „Determinants of innovation in small food firms.” European Journal of Innovation Management, 2003: 8-17.

Axelrod, R., Cohen, M. D. Harnessing Complexity: organizational implications of a scientific frontier. New York: Basic Books, 2000.

Berger, P. en B. Berger. Sociology: a Biographical Approach. Harmondsworth, 1976.

Berkes, Colding, en Folke. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: building resilience for complexity and change. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Berkes, en Folke. Linking Social and Ecological Systems:Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Berkhout, P. en C. van Bruchem. Landbouw-Economisch Bericht 2011. Den Haag: LEI-rapport 2011-17, 2011.

Betti, E. „Hermeneutics as the General Methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften.” In Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy and Critique, door J. Bleicher, 51-94. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.

Boonstra, F. G. Sturing in het ruimtelijk domein. Bundel essays en notities voor het ministerie van EL&I. Wageningen: Alterra, 2012.

Boschman, R.A., K. Frenken, J.G. Lambooy. Evolutionaire economie. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho, 2002.

Breeman, G. Cultivating Trust, How do public policies become trusted? Leiden: Leiden University, 2006.

70 Buuren, J. van en J. Eshuis. „Knowledge Governance: completing hierarchies, networks and markets?” In Knowledge Democracy, Editor: R.J. in ‘t Veld. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2010.

CBS. Terugblik, een eeuw in statistieken. Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2010.

Chapple, Karen., Cynthia Kroll, T. William Lester and Sergio Montero. „Innovation in the Green Economy: An Extension of the Regional Innovation System Model?” Economic Development Quarterly 25, nr. 5 (2011).

COM-79. 2012.

Compendium voor de Leefomgeving. Bedrijfsgrootte en economische omvang landbouwbedrijven 2000-2012. 2014. http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl2122- Bedrijfsgrootte-en-economische-omvang-landbouwbedrijven.html?i=11-61 (geopend 2 11, 2014).

Darwin, C.R. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray, 1859.

De Beaufort, F., Van Schie, P. Democracy in Europe. Of the people, bu the people, for the people? Brussels: European Liberal Forum asbl, 2010.

Dessing, E.G.M., F.J.P. van den Bosch, J. Luttik, P.H. Kersten, P. van der Wielen. Faciliteren van Innovaties op het Snijvlak van Topsectoren, bouwstenen voor innovaties en beleid. Wageningen: Alterra, Wageningen UR, 2012.

Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C. „The struggle to govern the commons.” Science 302 (2003): 1907- 1912.

Dovers, S.R., Hezri, A.A. „Institutions and the policy process.” WIREs Climate Change 1 (2010): 212- 231.

Duit, en Galaz. „Governance and Complexity: emerging issues for governance theory.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 21, nr. 3 (2008): 311-335.

Duit, Galaz, en Ebbesson. „Governance, complexity, and resilience.” Global Environmental Change 20 (2010): 363-368.

EC COM 546, final. „Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative 'Innovation Union': COM(2010) 546 final.” Brussel: European Commission, 2010.

EC, European Commission. presentation EIP agri - december 2012. Brussels: European Commission, DG Agri, 2012.

EIP Service Point. „EIP-AGRI Service Point - How can we help you?” Brussels: European Commission, 2013.

EU SCAR. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems Towards 2020, an orientation paper on linking innovation and research. Brussels: Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR), 2013.

European Commission. Coordination. 2013. http://www.cordis.europa.eu/coordination/era-net.htm. (geopend 2 1, 2014).

71 European Commission. European Economic Forecast, Autum 2013. Brussels: European Commission, 2013.

European Commission. Impact Assesment of the Common Agricultural Policy. Brussel: European Commission, 2011, page 18, Annex 7.

—. Kics. 2013. http://eit.europa.eu/kics/. (geopend 2 1, 2014).

—. „The EU's Rural Development Policy in the period 2014-2020.” Brussel: European Commission, 2013.

—. What is joint programming? 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/what-joint- programming_en.html (geopend 2 1, 2014).

Fabricius, C., Folke, C., Cundill, C., Schultz, L. „Powerless spectators, coping actors, and adaptive co- managers: a synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem management.” Ecology and Society 12, nr. 1 (2007): 29.

Financiën. Regeling periodiek evaluatieonderzoek en beleidsinformatie. Den Haag: Ministerie van Financiën, 2006.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J. „Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 (2005): 441-473.

Gallopin, G. C. „Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.” Global Environmental Change 16 (2006): 293-303.

Glouberman, S,. Campsie, P., Gemar, M., Miller, G. A Toolbox for Improving Health in Cities. Ottawa, Canada: Caledon Institute for Social Policy, 2003.

Godin, B. „The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework.” Science, Technology and Human Values 31, nr. 6 (2006): 639-667.

Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2002.

Habermas, J. Protestbewegung und Hochschulreform. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1969.

Hatfield-Dodds, S., Nelson, R., & Cook, D. C. „Adaptive governance: an introduction, and implications for public policy.” Paper presented at the Australian and New-Zealand Society for Ecological Economics Conference, 5-7th July 2007, 2007.

Hertin, Turnpenny, Jordan, Nilsson, Russel, en Nykvist. „Rationalising the policy mess? Ex ante policy assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process.” Environment and Planning A 41(5) , 2009: 1185 – 1200 .

Holling, C.S. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. London: John Wiley, 1978.

Holling, C.S. „Resilience and stability of ecological systems.” Annual Review of Ecological Systems 4 (1973): 1-21.

72 Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., Yalcin, R. „Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda.” Ecology and Society 14, nr. 1 (2009): 26.

IISD. Designing Policies in a World of Uncertainty, Change and Surprise Adaptive Policy-Making for Agriculture and Water Resources in the Face of Climate Change – Phase I Research Report. Winnipeg: IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development), 2006 .

IOB study. Improving food security, A systematic review of the impact of interventions in agricultural production, value chains, market regulation, and land security. The Hague: Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2011.

Johannessen, Jon-Arild. „A systemic approach to innovation: the interactive innovation model.” Kybernetes Vol. 38, nr. Iss: 1/2 (2009): 158 - 176.

Jorgenson. Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. California, United States of America: Sage Publications , 1989.

Klein, R. J. T., Nicholls, R. J., Thomalla, F. „Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept?” Environmental Hazards 5 (2003): 35-45.

Kooiman, J. „ Social-political governance: introduction.” In Modern Governance: New Government- Society Interactions, Editor: Kooiman, 1-7. London: SAGES, 1993.

Lee, K.N. „Appraising adaptive management.” Ecology and Society 2, nr. 3 (1999).

LTO Nederland. „Meeting 28-1.” Den Haag, 2014.

—. Visie op Europees landbouw en plattelandsbeleid. Haarlem: Studio Naskin, 2007.

LTO Nederland, Verkerk, K., Groot, L., Luiten, J., Quaedflieg, S. Feiten en cijfers van de Nederlandse land en tuinbouw. Brussel/Den Haag: LTO Nederland, 2014.

Mahoney, J. Thelen, K. Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

March, James G., en Johan P. Olsen. Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1989.

Nelson, Adger, en Brown. „Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilient framework.” Annual Review of Environmental Resources 32 (2007): 395-419.

OECD. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data,. 3rd Edition. Oslo: OECD, 2005.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. „Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems.” Environmental Management 34, nr. 1 (2004): 75-90.

73 Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Pierre, J., Peters, G. Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000.

Regulation 1305/2013, EC. „REGULATION (EU) No 1305/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCI, on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.” Brussels: European Council, 2013.

Rekenkamer. Evaluaties vooraf van rijksbeleid. Den Haag: De Rekenkamer, 1998.

Rekenkamer. Staat van de beleidsevaluatie. Den Haag: De Rekenkamer, 2002.

RLI. Briefadvies Gemeenschappelijk Landbouw Beleid; het Europees landbouwbeleid als transitie instrument voor de land en tuinbouw. De Haag: Raad voor Leefomgeving en Infrastructuur, 2011.

Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations. Third Edition. . New York: The free Press, A Division of Macmillan Publishing CO., Inc., 1983.

Rouillard, J.J. Adaptive water governance: Flood management and the policy process in Scotland. Dundee: University of Dundee, 2012.

RSM, Rotterdam School of Management. Erasmus Concurrentie en Innovatie Monitor 2011 – 2012. Rotterdam: INSCOPE Research for Innovation, Erasmus University, 2012.

Ruitenbeek, J., Cartier, C. The Invisible Wand: adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research, 2001.

Schumpeter. The Theorie of Economic Development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Cambridge; reprint 1980, Oxford University Press. New York: Harvard University Press, 1954.

Shepherd, G. The Ecosystem Approach: five steps to implementation Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. UK: IUCN, 2004.

Silvis, Oskam, en Meester. EU-beleid voor landbouw, voedsel en groen van politiek naar praktijk. Wageningen: Wageningen Acedemic Publishers, 2009.

Skelcher, C. „Jurisdictional integrity, polycentricism, and the design of democratic governance.” Governance: an International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 18, nr. 1 (2005): 89- 110.

Sutton, J. Sunk costs and market structure. Price competition, advertising and the evolution of concentration. Massachussetts Institute of Technology, 1991.

Terluin. SWOT analyse van de plattelandssituatie in Nederland voor POP3. Den Haag: LEI, 2013.

Terluin, Slangen, Van Leeuwen, Oskam, en Gaaff. De plattelandseconomie in Nederland; een verkenning van definities, indicatoren, instituties en beleid. Den Haag: LEI-rapport 4.05.04, 2005.

74 Toekomst GLB. Toekomst GLB. 2013. http://www.toekomstglb.nl/achtergrond-928.html (geopend Januari 29, 2014).

Topsector Agri Food. Agenda Agri-Food. 2014. www.top-sectoren.nl/agrofood (geopend 2 4, 2014).

VBTB. Handreiking Evaluatieonderzoek ex ante. Een praktisch handvat voor de opzet en uitvoering van evaluatieonderzoek ex ante. Deventer/Den Haag: Ministerie van Financien, 2003.

Velben, T. „Why is economics not a revolutionary science?” Quaterly Journal of Economica 12 (1898): 373-397.

Volberda, H.W., J.J.P. Jansen, M.P. Tempelaar en C.V. Heij. „Monitoren van sociale innovatie: slimmer werken, dynamisch managen en flexibel organiseren.” Tijdschrift voor HRM, nr. 1 (2011): 85-100.

Walters, C.J., & Holling, C.S. „Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing.” Ecology 71, nr. 6 (1990): 2060-2068.

Weiss, T.G. „Governance, good governance and global governance:Conceptual and actual challenges.” Third World Quarterly 21, nr. 5 (2000): 795-814.

WRR, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid. Naar een lerende economie, investeren in het verdienvermogen van Nederland. Den Haag/Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013.

75 Appendices

1 EIP expert workshop

2 Participatory Observation

3 EIP Roadshow

4 Proposed EIP Articles

5 Proposed POP budget

6 Overview of Dutch innovation measures and funds

No official rights can be derived from the information presented in these appendices. Appendices 4 and 5 consist only of concepts and have no official status.

76 1 EIP expert workshop

1.1 Workshop guidelines + agenda This appendix provides the guideline questions for the EIP workshop. These questions are based upon the theory of ex ante policy evaluations. The first round is about problem definitions, the second round about coming to solutions to the identified problems. These questions served as guidelines for the researcher, they were not literally asked. The questions and the agenda are in Dutch, whereas the workshop was in Dutch.

Workshop

Opening: Wat is innovatie?

Ronde 1

Oriëntatie op het probleem/de problemen

1. Wat is het huidige beleid en wat zijn de doelstellingen daarvan? (Introductie Koert EIP + aanvullingen) Wat is innovatie? Hoe vind innovatie in de agrosector plaats? Hoe past het EIP hierin? (gezamenlijke analyse; is namelijk bepalend voor rest van het verloop, en Koert weet niet het eenduidige antwoord) 2. Wat zijn de problemen? (identificeer er meerdere, ga met de problemen 4 max. stap voor stap de rest van het lijstje af) 3. Hoe is het probleem op de agenda gekomen? / Hoe is het probleem ontstaan? 4. Welke actoren spelen een rol? (zelf antwoord geven en laten aanvullen) 5. Welke belangen vertegenwoordigen de verschillende actoren? 6. Aan welke randvoorwaarden moeten de mogelijke oplossingen voor het probleem voldoen? 7. Op welke termijn dient het probleem opgelost te worden? 8. Hoe ziet de geografische afbakening van het probleem eruit? (Europese dimensie)

Concretisering van het probleem

1. Hoe ziet de gewenste situatie er uit/welke doelstellingen zijn geformuleerd? (herhaling van 1.1? Maar nu met problemen erbij, dus wat is het ideaalplaatje? Hou dit nog wel alge- meen, oplossingen pas in ronde 2) 2. Zijn deze doelstellingen in de loop der tijd aan veranderingen onderhevig geweest? (gedu- rende proces van 2 jaar) 3. Is de gewenste situatie op een éénduidige en ondubbelzinnige wijze weergegeven? (willen de actoren wel hetzelfde?) 4. Valt het probleem op te delen in deelproblemen (te fractioneren)? 5. Wiens probleem is het? (Stakeholders) 6. Is het probleem eenduidig en volledig geformuleerd? (check) 7. Welke doelstellingen kunnen uit de probleemconcretisering worden afgeleid? (hernieuwde doelstellingen?)

77 Ronde 2

Alternatieven (deze ronde moet, afhankelijk van het aantal problemen meerdere keren doorlopen worden)

1. Welke (beleids)alternatieven/maatregelen/instrumenten zijn denkbaar ter oplossing van het probleem? (Koert) 2. Welke alternatieven worden door de verschillende actoren aangedragen? 3. Grijpen de alternatieven aan bij zogenaamde manipuleerbare variabelen/ factoren dat wil zeggen factoren die kunnen worden beïnvloed? (is het überhaupt mogelijk?) 4. Is gekeken naar ervaringen elders? (Europa + EIP water) 5. Zijn de alternatieven op tijd te realiseren? 6. Kunnen er varianten voor de alternatieven worden ontwikkeld? 7. Welk beleidsmodel of beleidstheorie ligt er aan het alternatief ten grondslag/ via welke stap- pen/tussendoelstellingen tracht men de beleidsdoelstelling( en) te realiseren? (werk de alternatieven uit; hernieuwde beleidstheorie) 8. In hoeverre kan verwacht worden dat de doelstellingen worden bereikt (de beleidstheorie in het achterhoofd houdend)? 9. Welke neveneffecten zouden kunnen optreden? 10. Hoe zal de uitvoering van het beleid vorm worden gegeven (bijvoorbeeld organisatorisch)? (Multi level governance)

Conclusies en aanbevelingen (= slot, Koert)

1. Zijn de juiste conclusies getrokken? 2. Zijn de aanbevelingen logisch af te leiden uit het onderzoek? 3. Richten de aanbevelingen zich op de manipuleerbare/te beïnvloeden variabelen van het be- leidsterrein? 4. Heeft het beleid gezien de uitvoering kans van slagen of is het reëel dat reeds in de uitvoering het beleid zal mislukken? (Gerard) 5. Is reeds nagedacht over de ex post evaluatie, zijn er met andere woorden reeds evaluatie- momenten/punten ingebouwd en is nagedacht over de informatie die nodig is om het beleid ex post te kunnen evalueren?

78 Agenda

Agenda workshop EIP landbouw

13.00 uur inloop + lunch

13.30 introductie + voorstelronde

13.40 ronde 1:

Wat is innovatie en welke rol speelt het EIP landbouw hierin?

Welke problemen voorziet u de aankomende tijd met het EIP landbouw

14.40 pauze

15.00 ronde 2:

Welke oplossingen zou u willen aandragen voor de verwachtte problemen?

16.00 Conclusies, feedback en wvttk

16.30 Einde

79 1.2 Codes This appendix provides an overview of the codes given during the two rounds of the expert workshop. The codes mentioned more than one time have been converted into relative amounts. The graphs accompanying the amounts are represented in figure 19 and figure 20 in chapter 4.2.

Round 1:

Total amount of coded words in round 1: 9167 code Amount of time coded Code Code: amount of times mentioned Amount of words Relatively Actoren 7 Interest society 2 150 1,64% Adaptief 3 Existing interests 2 68 0,74% Administratieve lastendruk 1 Strongholds 2 146 1,59% Belang samenleving 2 Budget 2 198 2,16% beleid 1 Experts 2 76 0,83% Beoordelen 6 Short vs long term 2 122 1,33% Bestaande belangen 2 Name EIP 2 92 1,00% Bestaande concepten 1 Responsibility 2 116 1,27% Bestuurlijke omgeving 1 Adaptive 3 39 0,43% Bolwerken 2 Co financing 3 163 1,78% Budget 2 Juridical obstacles 3 77 0,84% Cofinanciering 3 Long process 3 62 0,68% Communicatie 4 Difficult concept 3 290 3,16% Cross boarder denken 1 OG 3 70 0,76% Definitie innovatie 13 Application of knowledge 3 110 1,20% Draagvlak 1 Trust 3 331 3,61% EU 1 Communication 4 142 1,55% Experimenteren 4 Experiments 4 222 2,42% Experts 2 Knowledge cycle 4 83 0,91% Fiche 1 Entrepreneurial skills 4 65 0,71%

80 Gezamenlijke doelen 1 Asking questions 4 118 1,29% GLB 1 Innovation policy 5 122 1,33% Gouden driehoek 8 Knowledge transfer 5 232 2,53% Informatie 1 Agriculture vs. research 5 202 2,20% Innovatie beleid 5 Judge 6 355 3,87% Innovatie in EIP 1 Actors 7 263 2,87% Innovatie in keten 1 Golden Triangle 8 293 3,20% Innovatie beslis proces 1 Internal obstacles 9 386 4,01% Interne belemmeringen 9 Definition innovation 13 949 10,35% Juridische belemmeringen 3 Pillar 2 16 1122 12,24% Kennis cyclus 4 Knowledge transfer 5 Korte vs lange termijn 2 Landbouw vs onderzoek 5 Lang proces 3 Level playing field 1 Manier van werken 1 Moeilijk concept 3 Naam EIP 2 Netwerk Platteland 1 OG 3 Ondernemer(schap) 4 Oplossingen zoeken 1 Overheidssturing 1 Pijler 2 16 Rol provincies 1 Rural networks 1 Samenwerking 1

81 Stigmatisering 1 Taal barrière 1 Toepassen van kennis 3 Verantwoording 2 Vernieuwing 1 Vertrouwen 3 Visie 1 Voorbeelden 1 Voorlopers 1 Vragen stellen 4 Weinig urgentie 1 Welvaart 1 Zoektocht naar kennis 1

82 Round 2:

Total amount of coded words in round 2: 6338

Amount of time coded Code Code: amount of times mentioned Amount of words Relatively Aanspreekpunt creëren 1 Judge 2 86 1,36% Actoren 14 Complex instrument 2 60 0,95% Administratieve druk 1 Evaluation 2 69 1,09% Andere landen 1 Movie 2 54 0,85% Belonen 1 Fragment story 2 66 1,04% Beoordeling 2 New structure 2 131 2,07% Bestaande structuur 1 Role government 2 115 1,81% Bestuurlijke omgeving 4 Top sectors 2 88 1,39% Betrokkenheid 1 Experiment 3 165 2,60% Boegbeeld (adoptie) 5 Way of communication 3 65 1,03% Communicatie 6 Administrative environment 4 227 3,58% Complex instrument 2 Difficult concept 4 101 1,59% Context 1 Vision 4 124 1,96% Dairyman 1 Adoption by 'figurehead' 5 143 2,26% Doelgroep 6 Communication 6 349 5,51% Een verhaal 1 Target group 6 311 4,91% EIP prijs 1 Regions 6 255 4,02% EIP tour 1 Role Europe 8 431 6,80% EU ondersteuning 1 Example 9 333 5,25% Evaluatie 2 Actors 14 677 10,68% Experimenteren 3 FG vs. OG 1

83 Filmpje 2 Flowdiagram 1 Fragmenteren verhaal 2 Framing 1 Informatie verspreiden 1 Innovatie 1 Interne beweging 1 Kennis nodig 1 Kennis verspreiding 1 Landbouw vs onderzoek 1 Lang proces 1 Makkelijke informatie 1 Manier communiceren 3 Moeilijk concept 4 Monitoring 1 Naamgeving 1 Netwerk Platteland 1 Nieuwe Structuur 2 OG 1 Ondernemers 1 Onderwerpen 1 Opinion leaders 1 Overzicht creëren 1 Persoonlijk contact 1 Pijler 2 1 Pilot 1 Praktische informatie 1 Problemen in communicatie 1

84 Regio's 6 Risico vs. onzekerheid 1 Rol Europa 8 Rol onderwijs 1 Rol overheid 2 Rural networks 1 Soort evaluatie 1 Taal barrière 1 Tijdsdruk 1 Topsectoren 2 Verandering en onzekerheid 1 Vertaling beleid naar praktijk 1 Vertrouwen 1 Visie 4 Voorlopers 1 Voorbeeld 9 Waarden van communicatie 1

85 1.2 Participants This appendix provides an introduction to the participants of the EIP expert workshop, conducted on 28-1-2014. In this description the participants introduce themselves. This appendix is based upon the transcription of the workshop and therefore in Dutch.

Jan van Esch

Ik werk bij het ministerie van Economische Zaken op het Directoraat Generaal Agro. Dat is de oude LNV poot. Binnen dat DG werk ik op de directie DAK; de Directie Agro Kennis. Onze taak is ervoor te zorgen dat kennis en innovatie in Nederland van de grond komt. De afgelopen twee jaar zijn we bezig geweest om te kijken of er binnen het Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid en Horizon 2020 goede aanknopingspunten zitten voor Nederlands kennis en innovatiebeleid. Dus kijken hoe Europese maatregelen en Nederlandse maatregelen op elkaar passen. Het EIP is daarin een manier om kennis en innovatiebeleid vorm te geven, ook binnen de Nederlandse context. Dus in dat kader ben ik vanaf het begin betrokken geweest bij het EIP om dat te onderzoeken, toetsen, draagvlak voor te creëren en samenwerking te zoeken met andere partijen.

Henk Kieft

Ik werk bij ETC, dat is een adviesbureau voor duurzame ontwikkeling. Wij zijn begonnen in ontwikke- lingslanden en vanaf 2000 ook in Nederland actief. Mijn langste geschiedenis zit in ontwikkelingslan- den, daar heb ik een jaar of 15 gewerkt. Vanaf het begin heeft ETC samengewerkt met innovatieve boeren. ETC heeft een afdeling ‘Prolinova’, dat is een wereldwijd netwerk voor innovatie van boeren waarin innovatie onder de aandacht wordt gebracht van onderzoekers en beleidsmakers. Naar onze mening zit er behoorlijk wat innovatiekracht bij ondernemers, gebruik dat en stuur dat niet al te veel ‘top-down’ aan. Deze insteek was ook de reden dat een groep Nederlandse boeren ons in het jaar 2000 vroeg om ook eens wat met Nederlandse boeren te doen. Dat waren de boeren die de voorlopers waren van wat nu de kringloop boeren of de kringloop landbouw is. Bij dat proces ben ik een jaar of tien betrokken geweest, midden in de spanningen van innovatie. Vragen als; zijn je ideeën wel of niet acceptabel, onderbouw je verhaal met wetenschap, de verhouding met LTO; al die dingen van innovatieprocessen zitten daarin. Dat heeft er ook toe geleid dat ik vorig jaar gevraagd ben door het European Rural Development Network om de focusgroep ‘Kennistransfer en innovatie’ te faciliteren. Dat heeft mij in de Brusselse wereld binnen gebracht. Ik merk ook wanneer ik daarover vertel in spreekbeurten in Nederland dat daar heel veel vragen naar zijn. Ik ben zelf landbouwkundige, in Wa- geningen afgestudeerd in tropische cultuurtechniek.

Annemiek Canjels

Ik werk bij de provincie Limburg en voor een klein deel bij Brainport 2020, welke meer een Brabantse omgeving vertegenwoordigd. In beide functies werk ik met name op het terrein van de verbinding tussen Europa en de regio. In Limburg focus ik mij daarbij op het gebied van landbouw en de bredere agro sector. In dat kader ben ik ook veel met het GLB bezig geweest. In het EIP traject is mijn eerste betrokkenheid geweest ten tijde van het schrijven van het advies van het Comité van de Regio’s. Ik heb dat namens de rapporteur op dit onderwerp Henk Brink gedaan. Dat advies was meteen een poging de regio’s te overtuigen dat dit een belangrijk onderdeel is van het GLB en Horizon 2020, ze

86 kunnen daarmee aan de slag. Vervolgens ben ik betrokken geweest bij het schrijven van het Strate- gisch Implementatie Plan, het SIP, van het EIP als lid van de sherpagroep belast met het schrijven van dit SIP. In Brussel nemen we ook zitting in het netwerk ERIAFF (European Regions in Innovation for Agriculture Food and Forestry) waar regio’s met elkaar over kennis en innovatie spreken. Tegelijker- tijd hebben wij in Nederland in samenwerking met LTO een landelijk overleg opgezet om te kijken of we in Nederland ook goed kunnen laten laden. Voorbeeld is om het EIP op een juiste manier te lin- ken aan het Nederlandse topsectoren beleid. Ten vierde ben ik lid van de schrijfgroep van het IPO welke belast is met het schrijven van de POP wetgeving rond EIP. Dat zijn meer nationaal georiën- teerde taken, daarnaast probeer ik dus via de eigen achterban in Limburg te kijken van welke eventuele projectgroepen interessant zijn voor het EIP.

Inge van Oost

Ik werk bij DG Agri bij de Europese commissie. Inmiddels hou ik mij al vier jaar bezig met het EIP, beginnend met de Commissie communicatie in 2011 waar ik de hand heb gehad in de ideeën lijst; de areas of innovation. Intussen was ik vanuit mijn vorige functie, waar ik het Commissie rapport voor bedrijfsadviesdiensten geschreven had, betrokken bij de schrijfgroep voor plattelandsontwikkeling en regionalisering. In het kader daarvan is artikel 35 en aanverwanten binnen het GLB heel belangrijk voor EIP. Na het gehele politieke proces, zoals het goedkeuren van de Commissie communicatie voor EIP, ben ik meer in detail de processen rond plattelandsontwikkeling gaan volgen, betreffende de discussie in het Europees Parlement. Tegelijkertijd, sinds we in 2011 wisten dat binnen DG Agri een vorm van inspraak kwam over Horizon 2020 gelden, zijn we ook begonnen daar ideeën aan te leveren voor die nieuwe aanpak met het doel het research framework Horizon 2020 af te stemmen op EIP. Dat betekende ook dat DG Agri en met name mij unit omgevormd moest worden. Daarvoor heb ik in de taskforce zitting genomen die de huidige unit research en innovation, heeft voorbereidt en het tweejaarlijks werkprogramma heeft geschreven. Dat programma focust zich op EIP en aanverwante zaken en betreft in totaal 150 miljoen.

Klaas Johan Osinga

Ik werk voor LTO Noord. Dat is een van de drie organisaties die de federatie LTO Nederland vormen. Daar zit ik in het team internationale zaken. In dat kader heb ik samen met collega Luc Groot in 2011 al met jouw (Inge) toenmalige collega Martin Scheele aan tafel gezeten om over het EIP te praten. Mijn achtergrond is een agrarische, ik ben opgegroeid op een gemengd bedrijf in Friesland. Daar woon ik nog steeds, in Leeuwarden. Ik heb een aantal jaar in de tropen gewerkt, in Papoea Nieuw Guinea als VSO vrijwilliger. Vervolgens heb ik in het praktijk onderzoek gezeten in Nederland. Sinds 15 jaar werk ik nu bij LTO en haar voorgangers. Het is dus zeker al drie a vier jaar geleden dat wij begrepen dat er iets nieuws zat aan te komen, EIP, en dat hebben wij vanuit LTO en zo mogelijk vanuit Copa-Cogeca altijd voluit ondersteund. De afgelopen tijd heb ik heel goed met Koert samengewerkt om dat EIP ook in Nederland te laten landen. Echter, nou moet het EIP allemaal nog steeds gebeuren en daar gaan we het vandaag over hebben.

Gerard Breeman

Ik werk bij de vakgroep bestuurskunde, of Public Administration and Policy. En in die hoedanigheid begeleid ik Koert in deze thesis.

87 Zelf ben ik geïnteresseerd in het GLB. Het proces van de hervorming heb ik helemaal gevolgd. Onze vakgroep was ook betrokken bij de maatschappelijke dialoog die door het ministerie van EL&I werd georganiseerd. Mijn interesse ligt vooral op het gebied van het winnen en bouwen van vertrouwen. Dat gaat vooral over processen waar multi stakeholders bij betrokken zijn. Het EIP is daar natuurlijk een ultieme vorm van; bouw een netwerk waar je stakeholders met elkaar verbindt. Vanuit mijn be- geleiding van studenten kom ik zo nu en dan ook innovatieprocessen tegen, vraag is dan meestal hoe je deze dan moet organiseren, opnieuw vanuit die Multi stakeholder problematiek. Naast vertrou- wensprocessen focus ik ook op het onderwerp politiek van de aandacht. Dus hoe komen issues op de maatschappelijke en politieke agenda terecht? Hoe werkt dat en wie spelen daar een rol, maar ook wat doe je ermee als overheid of als lobby organisatie? Dat soort vraagstukken, dat soort processen daar wordt ik enthousiast van en die onderzoek ik.

88 2 Participatory Observation This appendix provides an overview of the activities undertaken during the participatory observation.

Participatory Observa- tion

Gebruikte codes: Aantal keer gebruikt? Traineeship Brussels (1-9-2012/1-2- 2013) BR Brusselse 34 Traineeship Knowledge and Innovation werkzaamhe- (Netherlands based) 1-2-2013/1-2- den 2014) RS EIP Roadshow 12 TN Technische 20 invulling Nederland O Overig 7

Code: Datum: Wat? Korte omschrijving: Sleutel woorden Betrokken organisa- Betrokken personen: ties:

BR 5-9-2012 Ontmoeten KJ Osinga + Bijeenkomst GIZ ter vorming van con- Service Point GIZ, LTO KJ Osinga, Marc Nolting eerste bijeenkomst EIP sortium EIP service point consortium BR 11-9-2012 Vlaamse Boerenbond Ilse Geyskens bijpraten over EIP mee- Service Point, RDP regula- Ilse Geyskens bijpraten over EIP ting 5-9 tion BR 12-9-2012 KJ bellen over innova- Innovatiegelden EU, hoe en wat? H2020 KJ tiegelden BR 20-9-2012 EIP meeting - service Schrijven aan voorstel voor EIP service Service Point GIZ, LTO, Grunlandzen- Marc Nolting, Arno Krause, Adrien point point consortium trum, WUR, ACTA Guichioua, Marcel Meijer TN 26-9-2012 GLB conferentie Conferentie rond implementatie GLB in POP3 EL&I Jan van Esch (ontmoeting) Nederland BR 27-9-2012 Meeting Isabel Lopez Spaanse coöperaties inlichten activitei- RDP regulation, service LTO, Coopas alementa- Isabel Lopez ten GLB + EIP point rias BR 4-10-2012 Meeting GIZ Bijpraten/stand van zaken service point Service Point GIZ, LTO Marc Nolting, KJ Osinga voorstel

89 BR 5-10-2012 EIP meeting - service Schrijven aan voorstel voor EIP service Service Point GIZ, LTO, Grunlandzen- Marc Nolting, Arno Krause, Adrien point point consortium trum, WUR, ACTA Guichioua, Marcel Meijer BR 9-10-2012 EIP Conference call GIZ gaf aan de stekker uit het bid te / GIZ, LTO, Grunlandzen- Marc Nolting, Arno Krause, Adrien trekken trum, WUR, ACTA Guichioua, Marcel Meijer, E.A. O 23-10-2012 Presentatie budgetten Presentatie EU budgetten, ook H2020 RDP regulation, H2020 EU en RDP BR 5-11-2012 EIP meeting Bijeenkomst 5 landbouworganisaties Functioning EIP LTO, NFU, LRF, Coopas KJ Osinga, Adam Bedford, Made- over EIP Alimentarias, BB leine Koskull, Isabel Lopez, Ilse Geyskens BR 5-11-2012 Meeting Michael Kugler Bijpraten EIP, situatie Duitsland RDP regulation DBV, LTO KJ, Michael Kuegler BR 7-11-2012 EFFAB seminar Seminar EFFAB over resource efficien- H2020 EFFAB, Animal Taskfor- cy. Veel onderzoek dierlijke sectoren ce BR 14-11-2012 EIP inleiding geven bij Seminar working party melk van Copa- Functioning EIP COPA-COGECA, LTO Copa milk seminar Cogeca. Inleiding EIP gegeven BR 19-11-2012 EIP conferentie DG agri Grote EIP conferentie voor alle stake- Functioning EIP, H2020, DG Agri holders, meer dan 200 mensen RDP TN 19-11-2012 Jan van Esch, Eric Re- Bijpraten EIP, situatie Nederland POP3, communication EZ, LTO gioun LTO kantoor Brussel BR 19-11-2012 Diner EIP EIP diner met betrokken uit europa, oa. / NFU, LTO Overheid en landbouworganisaties BR 20-11-2012 Copa working party Functioning EIP, H2020, COPA-COGECA Tania Runge research RDP, Focus Groups, OGs, HLSB, role farmers TN 21-11-2012 Afspraak Jasper Dalhui- EIP in Nederland laten landen? POP3, communication EZ, LTO Jasper Dalhuizen zen TN 23-11-2012 Afspraak Ruud Duijg- EIP, samenwerking LTO & WUR H2020 LTO, WUR KJ, Ruud Duighuizen huizen BR 3-12-2012 EIP meeting Leden GIZ consortium komen samen International coopera- LTO, Grunlandzentrum, Arno Krause, Adrien Guichioua, om te bespreken of er verder samen- tion, thematic networks, WUR, ACTA, NFU, etc. Marcel Meijer, Adam Bedford, E.A. werking mogelijk is H2020 TN 4-12-2012 Overleg IZ LTO EIP bespreken in team internationale Functioning EIP, POP3, LTO Thijs Cuijpers, Frank van Oorschot, zaken LTO communication Gerbrandt van 't Klooster, Klaas Johan Osinga, Luc Groot BR 5-12-2012 Koffie EIP landbouwor- Overleg met NFU, LRF, Coopas over hoe International cooperation LTO, LRF, NFU, Coopas Adam Bedford, Isabel Lopez, Ma- ganisaties verder met EIP? Alementarias deleine Koskull BR 11-12-2012 EZ op bezoek + gesprek EZ directie DAK komt op bezoek in RDP EZ, LTO, COPA-COGECA Jan van Esch, Eric Regouin, Annet- Pekka Personen Brussel voor gesprek met LTO en ge- te Wijering, Luc Groot, Pekka sprek met Pekka Personen Personen BR 14-12-2012 EIP lunch Lunch met Adam Bedford over EIP en Thematic networks, OG's LTO, NFU Adam Bedford

90 ECIP initiatief BR 19-12-2012 ECIP meeting Gesprek over mogelijkheden rond ECIP International coopera- LTO, WUR, PZ Frans Aarts, Willem Koops, KJ en EuroDairy tion, thematic networks, H2020 TN 19-12-2012 Afspraak Jan van Esch Bijpraten EIP in Nederland + Brusselse RDP, POP3, H2020 LTO, EZ Jan van Esch budgetten TN 9-1-2013 EIP stuurgroep bijeen- 1ste EIP stuurgroep bijeenkomst, wat is Functioning EIP, POP3, LTO, EZ, IPO, Rabobank, Albert Jan Maat, Noud Janssen, komst EIP? Willen we dit? Hoe gaan we het national cooperation Wijnie van Eck, KJ, Luc Groot, doen? Brief richting Rutte en kabinet Annemiek Canjels, Jan van Esch, voor steun aan innovatie in Brusselse Dirk Jan Immenga, Henk Brink onderhandelingen over MFK BR 14-1-2013 Copa working party Functioning EIP, H2020, COPA-COGECA Tania Runge research RDP, Focus Groups, OGs, HLSB/SIP, role farmers BR 17-1-2013 AKIS werkgroep Deelname aan de AKIS werkgroep, AKIS, Role farmers, SCAR o.a. Jan van Esch, Inge van Oost, (+diner) presentatie ‘roots EIP’ gegeven en H2020, Focus Groups Krijn Poppe meedenken over eventuele thema's BR 18-1-2013 AKIS werkgroep + ex- Deelname aan de AKIS werkgroep, / SCAR ' cursie excursie georganiseerd naar GreenQ in Bleiswijk BR 28-1-2013 Afspraak DG Research Gesprek Hans Jorg Lutzeyer over EIP en H2020 DG Research Hans Jorg Lutzeyer H2020 BR 29-1-2013 EIP meeting Bijpraten landbouworganisaties en Role farmers, RDP LTO, LRF, NFU, Coopas Adam Bedford, Isabel Lopez, Ma- plannen maken voor aankomende half Alementarias deleine Koskull jaar BR 30-1-2013 Afspraak DG Agri gesprek met Iman Boot over EIP en RDP, communication DG Agri Iman Boot, Luc Groot landing in EU TN 6-2-2013 Afspraak Wijnie van Eck Wijnie inlichten over EIP Functioning EIP, POP3 LTO Wijnie van Eck O 14-2-2013 GLB communicatieover- Bijeenkomst georganiseerd door EZ Communication, Road- EZ, advies bureaus KJ, Anne bruinsma, Herman Snij- leg over communicatie rond GLB. EIP komt show ders ter sprake TN 14-2-2013 Overleg Overleg met KJ en Wijnie over EIP tour Roadshow LTO KJ, Wijnie van Eck en aanverwante acties O 21-2-2013 EIP HLSB HLSB meeting in Brussel, met AJM HLSB, Role farmers, LTO e.v.a. Albert Jan Maat H2020, RDP O 8-3-2013 Communicatieoverleg LTO initiatief over communicatie rond Communication LTO, Grooh communi- Luc Groot, Mirk Oppenhuis de EIP EIP, bespreken mogelijkheden catie Jong BR 20-3-2013 Diner EIP seminar Zwol- Overijssel organiseert samen met Dren- RDP, role regions Committee van de oa. Henk Brink en Dirk Jan Immen- le the en Flevoland een EIP seminar van- regio's ga uit het comité van de regio's

91 BR 21-3-2013 Seminar Comité van de ' / ' ' Regio's RS 2-4-2013 Afspraak KJ Voorbespreken eerste bijeenkomst EIP Roadshow LTO KJ roadshow TN 15-4-2013 EIP meeting Afspraak met KJ e.a. over EIP roadshow Roadshow LTO, DLG KJ, Willemien Brinkman e.a. & POP3 schrijfteam RS 30-5-2013 Telefonisch overleg Oa gesproken met Peter Prins, Ruud Functioning EIP, POP3, LTO, Rabobank, LLTB Huirne, KJ, Noud Janssen Roadshow RS 3-6-2013 EIP Roadshow - Valter- 1ste EIP roadshow bijeenkomst Roadshow mond RS 10-6-2013 Afspraak Harry Vreman Projecten LTO bijpraten over EIP, voor- Roadshow, POP3, H2020 LTO/LTO projecten Harry Vreman bereiden EIP roadshow bijeenkomst voor LTO projecten TN 17-6-2013 EIP stuurgroep bijeen- 2e EIP stuurgroep bijeenkomst, brief Functioning EIP, POP3, LTO, EZ, IPO, Rabobank, Albert Jan Maat, Noud Janssen, komst richting Dijksma en IPO voor steun aan national cooperation, Wijnie van Eck, KJ, Luc Groot, innovatie. Voorbereiding EIP HLSB voor role regions, HLSB Annemiek Canjels, Jan van Esch, COPA Dirk Jan Immenga, Henk Brink O 3-7-2013 Bestuurlijk overleg EZ & EZ & IPO stemmen af wie wat doet met Role regions, POP3 IPO, EZ IPO het EIP RS 18-7-2013 EIP Roadshow - Vierak- 2e EIP roadshow bijeenkomst Roadshow ker RS 31-7-2013 Afspraak Arnoud Smit Projecten LTO bijpraten over EIP Functioning EIP LTO/LTO projecten Arnoud Smit RS 28-8-2013 EIP Roadshow - LTO Soort van tweede roadshow bijeen- Roadshow LTO/LTO projecten Evelien Kloosterboer Projecten komst voor medewerkers van LTO projecten TN 29-8-2013 Afspraak Jasper Dalhui- Bijpraten EIP in Nederland laten lan- Communication, POP3, LTO, EZ Jasper Dalhuizen zen den? role regions RS 5-9-2013 EIP Roadshow - Baarlo 3e EIP roadshow bijeenkomst Roadshow TN 16-9-2013 Overleg Overleg met KJ en Wijnie over EIP tour Roadshow, POP3, role LTO KJ, Wijnie van Eck en aanverwante acties regions TN 24-9-2013 EIP stuurgroep bijeen- 3e EIP stuurgroep bijeenkomst, EIP als POP3, communication, LTO, EZ, IPO Albert Jan Maat, Noud Janssen, komst instrument in POP, acties voor 1 loket role regions, submissions. Wijnie van Eck, KJ, Luc Groot, afstemmen. Assessment of projects Annemiek Canjels, Jan van Esch, Dirk Jan Immenga, Henk Brink RS 26-9-2013 Afspraak Susan Albers Provincie Noord Holland bijpraten over Roadshow, role regions, LTO, Provincie Noord- Suzan Albers EIP en mogelijkheden voor roadshow POP3 Holland bijeenkomst RS 2-10-2013 EIP Roadshow - DLV DLV plant bijpraten over EIP Roadshow LTO, DLV plant Plant

92 BR 8-10-2013 Ontbijt meeting EIP Drenthe organiseerde EIP ontbijt voor Role regions, POP3/RDP LTO, Provincie Drenthe, Luc Groot, KJ, Dirk Jan Immenga, Nederlanders in Brussel Overijssel, Brabant. DG Henk Brink, Iman Boot, e.a. Agri, Comité van de Regio's BR 8-10-2013 Afspraak Inge van Oost Gesprek met Inge van Oost over EIP Functioning EIP, commu- DG agri, LTO Luc Groot, KJ nication, H2020, RDP BR 8-10-2013 Afspraak Willemien Gesprek EIP service point, hun rol en Service Point EIP service point, LTO Willemien Brinkman, Sergio …, KJ Brinkman mogelijkheden BR 25-10-2013 Brussel Gesprekken met Luc, Tania en Adam / LTO, NFU, COPA- Luc Groot, Tania Runge, Adam over EIP COGECA Bedford RS 31-10-2013 Afspraak Chris Koop- Gesprek met Chris Koopmans van LBI Roadshow, cooperation LTO, LBI Chris Koopmans, Jan Paul Wage- mans over EIP en EIP roadshow bijeenkomst naar thema biologisch TN 4-11-2013 Afspraak Henk Kieft Gesprek met Henk Kieft over rol Net- POP3 LTO, ETC Henk Kieft werk Platteland en EIP in Nederland TN 7-11-2013 Afspraak Jan van Esch Lunch met Jan van Esch over EIP in NL. Budget, communication, LTO, EZ Jan van Esch Lobby acties uitzetten voor brief TK. POP3, cooperation Budget onderhandelingen IPO & EZ TN 13-11-2013 Bijeenkomst EIP pilot Mogelijkheden bespreken met betrek- Pilot, RDP, H2020 LTO, WUR, LTO Projec- Wijnie van Eck, Evelien Klooster- melk king tot invullen pilot EIP melk ten boer, Cathy van Dijk, KJ, Ruud Duighuisen, Gerard Miechelse RS 28-11-2013 EIP Roadshow - Broek 4e EIP roadshow bijeenkomst Roadshow in Waterland O 13-12-2013 Afspraak Harry Kager Inventariseren mogelijkheden EIP en / LTO Harry Kager Biobased initiatieven O 8-1-2014 Afspraak Agnes van Mogelijkheden EIP voor biobased in- / LTO, Productschap Agnes van Ardenne, Harry Kager Ardenne dutries en opvolging productschap Tuinbouw tuinbouw BR 14-1-2014 EIP workshop EIP workshop georganiseerd door EIP H2020 DG Agri, Service Point, service point in Brussel COPA-COGECA TN 16-1-2014 Telefonisch overleg Telefonisch overleg over de ontwikke- POP3, role regions LTO KJ, Wijnie van Eck, Gerbrand van 't lingen rond POP3 en het EIP. Afstem- Klooster men lobby acties LTO richting provincies en EZ TN 30-1-2014 EIP stuurgroep bijeen- 4e EIP stuurgroep bijeenkomst, POP3, Role regions, assessment LTO, EZ, IPO Albert Jan Maat, Noud Janssen, komst rol provincies, rol Nationaal netwerk of projects, POP3 Wijnie van Eck, KJ, Luc Groot, POP Annemiek Canjels, Jan van Esch, Dirk Jan Immenga, Henk Brink e.a.

93 3 EIP Roadshow This appendix provides an insight in the Roadshow as organised by LTO Nederland in 2013. The presentation which was given during the meetings and a report of a meeting is provided.

3.1 Presentation This presentation was given during the 5 roadshow meetings. Details regarding the sectors may change between the presentation. This presentation was given on 28-11-2013 in Broek in Waterland during the fourth roadshow meeting organised around the theme ‘organic farming’. The presentation is in Dutch

Europees Innovatie Partnerschap (EIP)

“Landbouw Productiviteit en Duurzaamheid”

November 2013 Koert Verkerk – Trainee Kennis & Innovatie LTO Nederland

Even voorstellen

Koert Verkerk

• Student Wageningen • Stagiair Brussel LTO Nederland • Trainee Kennis & Innovatie  Implementatie EIP landbouw in Nederland

94 EIP context

• Hervorming Gemeenschappelijk Landbouw Beleid (GLB)

• Pijler 2 (Plattelandsbeleid) ruimte voor onderzoek en innovatie in (duurzame) landbouw om EU voor te bereiden op toekomstige uitdagingen

EIP context

• Europa 2020 strategie  ‘Innovatie Unie’

• Budget: €70 miljard

• 5 EIP’s: – Water – Gezond ouder worden – Grondstoffen – Duurzame landbouw – Slimme steden

EIP context

• 2014-2020 in EU begroting €3,7 miljard voor onderzoek en innovatie in landbouw op; – Voedselzekerheid – Bio-Economie – Duurzaamheid

• ± 2 miljard hiervan gereserveerd voor onderzoek met Multi Actor Approach (=EIP)

• EIP landbouw kan hier toegang toe faciliteren. Maar dit vergt organisatie aan de basis….

95 Doelen EIP

• Er is een gat tussenBoeren onderzoekPraktijk en

praktijk Interactie

• Dus Bottum-feedback Up benadering  boeren praktijk komt met vraagstelling, onderzoek is dienend (zonder ondergeschikt te

worden!!) resultaten

• Multi-actor approach (toegepast) onderzoek

Groepen in EIP

• Stuurgroep  Niveau ministers (Albert Jan Maat (LTO) & Hans van Es (Freshfell) in stuurgroep. Henk Brink (Drenthe) in sherpagroep).

• Service Point (Brussel)  DLG & VLM Digitale Nieuwsbrief

• Focus Groepen  Expert groepen – in 2013 zes thema’s: • Biologische Landbouw (optimalisering opbrengsten) • Proteïne gewassen • Veehouderij (terugdringen gebruik antibiotica in varkenssector) • Genetische resources • Organische kwaliteit van bodem • Geïntegreerd pest management (IPM)

• Operationele Groepen  Jullie

96 OG OG OG OG OG OG OG

OG OG Focus Focus OG groep OG groep OG OG NW NW

OG OG EIP Focus Conferentie Netwerk Focus OG OG groep groep OG OG OG Focus Workshop OG groep OG OG NW OG OG Seminar OG OG OG OG OG OG

Ultiem Streven NW Ultiem streven Thematische netwerken kunnen internationaal werken NW NW

NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW NW

NW NW NW NW

Hoe gaat dit werken?

Boeren

NGOs Adviseurs

Agri- business Operationele Onderzoekers Groep

97 Operationele Groep

• Wie? – Boeren, onderzoekers, ketenpartijen etc. Iedereen met een (praktische) vraag. Echter; praktijk leidend – Kunnen ook bestaande groepen zijn als (bv.) melkveeacademie

• Wat? – In de OG zoeken de betrokkenen samen naar een (niet altijd wetenschappelijk) antwoord op een vraag uit de praktijk. – Hiervoor moet worden ingeschreven op fondsen (bijvoorbeeld onderzoeksgeld uit ‘Horizon 2020’). Echter, dit kost tijd en vergt investeren!

Operationele Groep

• Waar? – Alle soorten samenwerking mogelijk, maar in eerste instantie op regionaal niveau

• Wanneer? – Zodra POP3 is goedgekeurd (medio 2014). Echter we kunnen nu al starten…

Operationele Groep

• Waarom? – Boeren hebben vaak praktische problemen en vragen die ze beantwoord willen hebben. Er komt nu financiering vrij om boeren te ondersteunen deze antwoorden te zoeken (bijvoorbeeld bedrijfsverzorging inhuren voor een aantal dagdelen etc.) – Maak onderzoeks-resultaten direct beschikbaar voor boeren

98 Financiering Operationele Groep

PlattelandsNationaleHorizonPrivate - OperationeleERDF ontwikkelingFondsenGroep2020

Financiering Operationele Groep • Pijler 2 GLB, cofinanciering • In Nederland wordt dit ondergebracht in Plattelands Ontwikkelings Programma (POP3) die worden uitgevoerd door landsdelen (= aantal provincies samen) • EIP wordt betaald uit POP3, budget 85 miljoen euro totaal. Cofinanciering EIP= 80% EU - 20% NL

Operationele Groep praktisch 1. Vraag vanuit de praktijk; boer/sector 2. Boer (bijvoorbeeld) zoekt hulp bij collega’s, ketenpartij, onderzoeker etc. Samen huren ze een zaaltje  Dus‘kunnen praktisch, we er een direct vraagstelling en snel vanonderzoek maken welke wat we voornamelijkvervolgens gaan in beantwoorden?’de beginfase niet veel hoeft te 3. kostenWat is eren al wordt bekend betaald uit eerder uit onderzoek POP met op andere cofinancieringlocaties? 4. Zo nodig bijvoorbeeld een demonstratie of studiereis 5. Zo nodig nieuw onderzoek (waarvoor Horizon2020 fondsen nodig zijn). 6. … etcetera

99 Conclusie

• Er liggen kansen om onderzoek beter beschikbaar te maken voor praktijk • Gunstige voorwaarden • Geen verliezers wanneer we samenwerken

• Hoe kunnen we vanavond hiermee starten?

Vragen?

Koert Verkerk Trainee Kennis & Innovatie LTO Nederland

[email protected]

Twitter: @koertverkerk

• Europe Direct is een programma waarin LTO Noord en de Europese Commissie samenwerken in communicatie over het beleid van de Europese Unie.

100 3.2 Report of Roadshow meeting Every roadshow meeting was concluded with a report of the meeting. This report was send to all participants. This appendix provides the report on the meeting of 5-9-2013 which took place in Baarlo around the theme ‘Horticulture’. The report is in Dutch.

Verslag EIP bijeenkomst Baarlo (5-9-2013)

LTO Nederland en Europe Direct hebben in het kader van de voorlichtingsronde over het nieuwe European Innovation Partnership (EIP) voor de landen tuinbouw op 5 september de derde bijeenkomst gehouden. Het EIP is een mogelijk nieuw instrument in het Plattelandsontwikkelingsplan 2014- 2020 (POP3) waarmee boeren en tuinders beter toegang moeten kunnen krijgen tot EU- onderzoeksgelden. Het EU-programma “Horizon 2020” staat meer dan vroeger open voor actieve deelname door ondernemers en niet alleen maar onderzoekers. Dit past bij de visie “Europa 2020” dat economische groei pas tot stand kan komen, als je ondernemers (vooral ook MKB’ers) vanaf het begin actief laat zijn in kennisprocessen. Die ondernemers zullen uiteindelijk de resultaten van onderzoek moeten toepassen in hun eigen bedrijf. Dit moet leiden tot meer concurrentiekracht, en dus meer economische groei en banen. Het EIP is onderdeel van het GLB (pijler 2) en biedt voor de agrarische sector de kans om het dalende inkomen uit de toeslagrechten terug te verdienen uit de markt door meer innovatief en concurrerender te worden.

In de periode 2007-2013 is € 1,9 miljard EU-onderzoeksgeld beschikbaar voor voeding en landbouw. In de periode 2013-2020 wordt dit verhoogd naar ruim € 4 miljard.

Deze derde voorlichtingsbijeenkomst vond plaats op het bedrijf van de familie Fleuren, een kweker van vruchtbomen (voornamelijk kersen) en onder andere bekend van de ‘mini-tree’. Onder de aan- wezigen waren enkele praktiserende tuinders (vertegenwoordigers van de LTO Vakgroep tuinbouw) en vertegenwoordigers uit de tuinbouw sector. Daarnaast was o.a. het Ministerie van Economische Zaken en de provincie Limburg en Brabant aanwezig.

Na opening door Noud Janssen (voorzitter LLTB Limburg en portefeuillehouder kennis en innovatie) gaf Koert Verkerk (LTO Nederland) een presentatie waarin werd ingegaan op de (technische) werking van het EIP landbouw en wat het EIP kan betekenen voor de ontwikkelingen in de tuinbouw sector (de presentatie is bijgevoegd).

De reacties op de presentatie waren wisselend. Waar het EIP is bedoeld als instrument om de boe- renpraktijk aan het roer te laten lijkt het bureaucratisch geheel te zijn met veel groepen die slecht toegankelijk zijn. De deelnemers begrepen het concept van het EIP en zagen ook het nut, echter de terechte vraag werd gesteld, wat maakt het EIP anders dan de bestaande regelingen? Wij doen dit in

101 Nederland toch al? Antwoord: het EIP is in Europa nieuw, maar in de basis niet nieuw voor Neder- land, deze visie werd ook ondersteund door EZ. De Nederlandse landbouw is groot geworden via de samenwerking in de Gouden Driehoek van bedrijfsleven, overheid en onderzoek. Het EIP biedt de kans om deze verbinding opnieuw op te pakken en het onderzoek waar mogelijk weer in dienst te stellen van de praktijk. Hiervoor hoeven niet per definitie nieuwe groepen te worden opgesteld, bestaande structuren kunnen passen binnen het EIP. In Nederland is dat dan ook een goede optie. We hebben netwerken als pootgoedacademie etc. Echter de huidige financiering zal gaan veranderen in het kader van EIP.

Qua toegankelijkheid zou de kunst moeten zijn om je te richten op het oprichten van Operationele Groepen en deze zeer laagdrempelig te houden. Hiervoor moet nauw samengewerkt worden met de betrokken overheden om de eerste vereisten om een groep op te richten niet te hoog te laten zijn; een makkelijke instap en pas in een later stadium verdere vereisten. Het POP3 schrijf team neemt dit ook mee de aankomende tijd wanneer zij verder schrijven aan de regeling rond het EIP.

Vanuit het ministerie en de provincies werd positief gereageerd op het concept EIP. Zij zien voor zichzelf een faciliterende rol wanneer betrokken partijen laten zien dat ze serieus met dit initiatief aan de slag willen. Er moet dus als volgt geredeneerd worden “je hebt een vraag en die wil je beantwoord hebben, niet er komt een pot geld voorbij en nu heb ik een vraag”. Geld is dus absoluut geen doel op zich, maar regel wel dat je slim toegang krijgt tot het geld. Er werd ook duidelijk aangegeven dat overheden weg willen van alle losse kennisvragen en kleine projecten. Bundel de vragen in een Operationele Groep en schaal vervolgens op.

De discussie tijdens de avond was vooral gericht op hoe het EIP goed ingericht kon worden op het niveau van tuinders. Daarbij werd de terechte opmerking gemaakt dat niet iedere innovatie voort komt uit onderzoek of daartoe leidt. Het is dus niet zo dat er altijd Horizon 2020 geld Een voorbeeld van een Operationele Groep is de aan te pas komt. De praktijk kan ook zelf groep ‘samenwerken en vaardigheden’ die door veel kennisvragen beantwoorden. Het EIP GreenQ georganiseerd is. Deze groep komt tot kan daarbij een rol spelen via het POP geld concreet onderzoek door gezamenlijk kennisvra- als zijnde procesgeld. gen te bepalen en deze uit te zetten bij bijvoorbeeld de WUR. Ondernemers prioriteren hier dus De kennisvragen die er zijn binnen de de onderwerpen en houden zo het roer in han- tuinbouwsector zijn al veelal bekend. den. Wanneer een groep telers een bepaald onderwerp belangrijk vindt en daar ook in investeert, dan moet de overheid prioriteit geven aan dat onderwerp. En, zoals aangegeven, niet in een gesloten regeling als bureaucratisch geheel waar vraag gedreven initiatieven in verzanden. Bijvoorbeeld door panels van ‘experts’ die breed gedragen onderzoeksvoorstellen nog eens gaan beoordelen op prioriteit. Wanneer ondernemers erin investeren is het belangrijk.

Daarbij werd ook aangegeven dat ondernemers zeker bereid zijn zelf bij te dragen. Wanneer je als tuinder innoveert is dat ook een investering. Ze betalen dan echter ook om de kwaliteit te waarbor- gen.

102 Vraag die werd gesteld was ook hoe je als tuinders, onderzoek en praktijk samen, ervoor kan zorgen dat de onderwerpen die wel onderzoek behoeven op de Europese onderzoek agenda kunnen komen. Hiervoor zijn twee mogelijkheden. Dit kan door te lobbyen voor een focusgroep met een bepaald (door de sector) gewenst onderwerp. Het kan ook door Operationele Groepen goed te organiseren en zo de kennisvraag trapsgewijs (provincie, Nationaal, Brussel) te laten doordringen naar Brussel.

Wanneer men groepen wil vormen over de landsgrenzen heen binnen de EU, zoals nodig is voor Ho- rizon 2020 calls, is het eerste aanspreek punt het Service Point in Brussel (DLG). Zij helpen met de identificatie van soortgelijke groepen. De financieringsstromen voor zulke groepen gaan dan ook anders lopen, namelijk via Thematische Netwerken. Die kunnen ook internationaal zijn. Dat is handig, omdat je voor het inschrijven op Horizon 2020 tenders met tenminste met organisaties uit twee andere EU-lidstaten moet samenwerken. Een goed voorbeeld van een thematisch netwerk zou het Eu- ropean Cattle Innovation Partnership (ECIP) kunnen zijn. Deze groep heeft leden in meerdere lidstaten en voldoet aan de eisen om op een onderzoeksproject in te kunnen schrijven.

LTO Nederland – Europe Direct gaat de komende tijd meer voorlichtingsbijeenkomsten organiseren, gericht op o.a. bodemvruchtbaarheid.

Voor meer informatie:

Koert Verkerk Trainee Kennis & Innovatie LTO Nederland

Email: [email protected] Mob: +31 (6) 29 27 37 70

Twitter: @koertverkerk

103 4 Proposed EIP articles This appendix shows the proposed EIP articles in POP3 as presented on December 2013. At 13-3- 2014 the official proposals of the Dutch RDP measures were presented. However, the information in the thesis was based upon the proposals of December 2013 therefore these are still presented here.

Only measure 36 is provided here. Measure 29, 18, 21 and 15 are also considered of importance and are coupled to each other.

In Dutch.

CONCEPT 3 DECEMBER 2013 – MAATREGEL 36

8: BESCHRIJVING VAN ELKE GESELECTEERDE MAATREGEL 8.1. Beschrijving van de algemene voorwaarden PM 8.2. Beschrijving per maatregel 8.2.1.Titel van de maatregel Samenwerking 8.2.1.1. Wettelijke basis Artikelen 36, 53, 61, 62 en 63 van de ELFPO verordening en de gedelegeerde handelingen …

8.2.1.2. Algemene beschrijving van de maatregel De SWOT-analyse en daaruit volgende strategie laten zien dat de agrarische sector met de bijbehorende voorzieningenke- ten haar strategie met focus op kostenreductie zal moeten verbreden om haar concurrentiekracht te behouden waarbij de externe effecten voor milieu, landschap en samenleving worden verminderd. De sector ziet hiervoor kansen door in te zetten op innovatie in nieuwe samenwerkingsvormen die zijn gericht op sterkere banden met nieuwe en bestaande partners, binnen en buiten de agrofoodketen. Vanwege de relatief kleine schaal van veel spelers in de agrosector en de vaak gefragmenteerde initiatieven is samenwerking van groot belang om te komen tot de noodzakelijke nieuwe producten, diensten, markten en ketenmodellen. Deze samenwerking kan vorm krijgen als relatief kleinschalige verbanden, maar ook als operationele (grens overschrijdende) groepen waarvoor het EIP kader is ingericht. Voor een toekomstbestendige landbouw zijn samenwerkingsvormen nodig die bijdragen aan de verbetering van het ren- dement, het imago van de primaire sector en de omgevingskwaliteit. Het gaat om verbindingen gericht op innovaties en cross-overs die leiden tot meerwaarde-creatie, kostenverlaging en een beter risicobeheer, en die tevens bijdragen aan de realisatie van maatschappelijke opgaven. Het bekende OVO-drieluik van onderzoek, voorlichting en onderwijs, dat heeft geleid tot een sterke kennisontwikkeling in de agrarische sector, is opgewaardeerd tot de triple helix aanpak van samenwerking tussen overheden, bedrijfsleven en kennisinstellingen. Deze aanpak wordt gebruikt in het Rijks-topsectorenbeleid en het economische beleid van de regio’s. Er liggen voor het POP3-programma goede kansen om hierop aan te sluiten en deze aanpak te versterken. Hetzelfde geldt voor nieuwe verbindingen tussen de agrarische sector met andere actoren in het landelijk gebied en uit het stedelijke domein (zoals de vrijetijdseconomie, zorg en high-tech industrie) die leiden tot nieuwe cross-overs. De maatregel met de beoogde samenwerkingsverbanden zijn primair gericht op innovatie en modernisering van de agrarische sector ook met het oog op duurzaamheid, zoals kwaliteit leefomgeving. De betrokkenheid van de samenwerkingspart- ners uit de andere sectoren dient, vanuit deze optiek, enkel om de gewenste veranderingen in de agrarische sector te be- werkstellingen of te versnellen. Wanneer samenwerking is gericht op innovatie zal dit leiden tot extra kosten in de vorm van o.a. coördinatie, en risico’s vanwege de faalkans van een project. Door een deel van deze kosten te vergoeden en daarmee de risico’s te verlagen, stimuleert de overheid deze inspanningen en investeringen van samenwerkende partijen. De maatregel richt zich vooral op het ontwikkelen en valideren van praktische kennis en technologie met een groep van koplopers, die met name resulteert in technische innovatie, productinnovatie, procesinnovatie, organisatie-innovatie, innovatie in businessconcepten en/of uiteindelijk systeeminnovatie.

104 Er wordt steun verleend voor bevordering van samenwerkingsvormen waarbij ten minste twee actoren betrokken zijn, met name voor: a) samenwerkingsvormen tussen verschillende actoren in de landbouwsector en de voedselketen, en andere actoren die bijdragen tot de verwezenlijking van de doelstellingen en prioriteiten van het plattelandsontwikkelingsbeleid, waaronder producentengroeperingen, coöperaties en brancheorganisaties; b) de oprichting en werking van operationele groepen in het kader van het EIP voor de productiviteit en duurzaamheid in de landbouw, zoals bedoeld in artikel 62.

De categorieën b is een verbijzondering van de onder a beschreven samenwerkingsvormen.

Europa heeft rond enkele urgente thema’s het nieuwe instrument EIP ingericht: een omgeving die zorgt dat wetenschap en praktijkkennis beter worden verbonden en dat resultaten sneller in de maatschappij worden geïmplementeerd. Rond het EIP APS beoogt Europa om maatschappelijke opgaven inzake landbouw, voedselvoorziening, klimaat en gezondheid sneller aan te pakken. Dit gebeurt door personen uit verschillende disciplines te laten samenwerken en door verschillende instrumenten gecombineerd in te zetten: meerdere maatregelen uit het Plattelandsfonds, Horizon 2020 werkplannen en in voor- komende gevallen ook Structuurfondsen en financieringsinstrumenten. De Europese fondsen worden gecombineerd met nationale en regionale fondsen. Crux van het EIP is dat Operationele Groepen een innovatie-opgave omarmen en een proces doorlopen dat leidt tot een oplossing in de vorm van een vermarktbare en/of toepasbare verbetering in de agrarische bedrijfsvoering. Dat kan zijn in de primaire productie of elders in de keten, rond voedselvoorziening of de biobased economie. Deze oplossing wordt, zoveel mogelijk als haalbaar en zinvol, in een Europa-brede samenwerking ontwikkeld. Een regionale groep zoekt kennis en partners buiten de eigen groep, zodat Europese praktijkkennisclusters ontstaan. Het ontwikkelproces kan aanleiding zijn tot een aanvraag voor nieuw fundamenteel onderzoek of een aanvraag tot toepasbaar maken van bestaande onderzoeksresultaten in het kader van Horizon 2020 en de voorgangers daarvan. Hoewel de Nederlandse landbouw een goede infrastructuur kent, qua samenwerking, kennisoverdracht en innovatie, is de noodzaak voor deze maatregel hoog. De snel veranderende en sterk verstedelijkte omgeving met hoge productiekosten, stelt de Nederlandse agrarische ondernemers voor grote uitdagingen om hun bedrijfsstrategie aan te passen. Zonder een impuls te geven aan samenwerkingsvormen, waarbij ondernemers meer over hun eigen grenzen heen kijken, zullen kansen voor innovaties worden gemist die nodig zijn om concurrerend te blijven en tevens de negatieve externe ecologische en maatschappelijke effecten te verminderen. De positieve ervaringen met het stimuleren van samenwerking in de agrarische sector gericht op innovaties, middels het POP2-programma en stimuleringsregelingen van het rijk resp. de provincies, hebben mede de basis gevormd voor onderha- vige POP3-maatregel. Sub-maatregelen Deze maatregel is gericht op samenwerkingsvormen met de volgende sub-maatregelen: 1. Samenwerking voor proefprojecten (36.2.a) en voor de ontwikkeling van nieuwe producten, praktijken, processen en technologieën (36.2.b) 2. De oprichting en werking van operationele groepen in het kader van het EIP voor de productiviteit en duurzaamheid in de landbouw, zoals bedoeld in artikel 62 (36.1.c)

Onder sub-maatregel 1 worden ook samenwerkingsvormen voor proefprojecten en voor ontwikkeling van nieuwe producten, praktijken, processen en technologieën bedoeld die gericht zijn op duurzaamheid, zoals biodiversiteit, Natura 2000, klimaatmitigatie en –adaptatie. Er is niet gekozen voor aparte sub-maatregelen voor deze doelen, omdat sub-maatregel 1 dit alles omvat. Demarcatie en synergie Waar maatregel 36 vooral bedoeld is voor het ontwikkelen en testen van innovaties door een vrij kleine groep van voorlopers, is maatregel 15 (kennisoverdracht en voorlichting) gericht op uitwisseling van kennis aan grote aantallen van voornamelijk agrarische ondernemers, c.q. het peloton, over toepassing van gevalideerde innovaties. Beide maatregelen kunnen in één project van toepassing zijn, samen met maatregelen 18 (bedrijfsinvesteringen) en 29 (agromilieu- en klimaatsteun) die Nederland heeft gekozen voor het POP3-programma. Bij de uitvoering wordt met maatregel 36 de synergie met andere Europese programma´s bevorderd voor een optimale inzet van de middelen, zoals geschetst in het partnerschapscontract. Zo liggen er voor de samenwerkingsverbanden goede mogelijkheden om aan te sluiten op de RIS3-innovatiestrategie van de landsdelige regionale programma´s (ten behoeve van innovatie en MKB), de interreg-programma´s (beide met EFRO-fondsen) en Horizon2020 (wetenschappelijk onderzoek) voor regionaal sterke sectoren en crossovers tussen deze sectoren. 8.2.1.3. Bijdrage aan aandachtsgebieden en horizontale doelstellingen

105 1. Bijdrage aan aandachtsgebied Aandachtsgebied 1b. Het verstevigen van de banden tussen de landbouw, de voedselproductie, onderzoek en innovatie, mede met het oog op een beter milieubeheer en betere milieuprestaties. Dit aandachtsgebied is de optelsom van de inzet van deze maatregel bij de andere aandachtsgebieden. Deze maatregel wordt alleen ingezet bij aandachtsgebied 2a, namelijk samenwerking gericht op innovatie en modernisering van landbouwbedrijven. 2. Bijdrage aan de horizontale doelstellingen Innovatie Innovatieprocessen komen steeds meer tot stand door samenwerking van verschillende partijen en door betrokkenheid van gebruikers bij de ontwikkeling van nieuwe producten en diensten. Door over hun eigen grenzen te kijken, krijgen bedrijven eerder en beter zicht op innovatieve ideeën, kennis en technologieën dan wanneer zij alleen op eigen bronnen zouden vertrouwen. Dit geldt extra voor de agrosector waar de primaire productie voornamelijk wordt verzorgd door relatief kleinschalige gezinsbedrijven. De samenwerkingsvormen die met deze maatregel worden beoogd, dragen bij aan open innovatie waarbij ondernemers steeds meer in netwerken opereren en hun innovatieprocessen in toenemende mate openstellen voor inbreng van andere partijen. Met open innovatie wordt beter ingespeeld op: de toenemende complexiteit van producten en dienstverlening, waarbij de onderlinge afhankelijkheden van organisaties toeneemt. En verder op: de veranderingen in de markt richting bijvoorbeeld belevingseconomie; de convergentie van een aantal technologieën zoals de bio-, en informatietechnologie; de veranderende positionering van kennisinstellingen met een sterkere gerichtheid op valorisatie; en tot slot de toenemende rol van kleinere, private, kennisintensieve partijen in het kennislandschap. De samenwerking gericht op open innovatie heeft nadrukkelijk betrekking op alle aspecten van het innovatieproces: kennisontwikkeling, proto-typing, validatie, productie, marktintroductie, implementatie en vernieuwing van het business model. Hoewel bedrijven doorgaans zelf in staat zijn de meest geschikte partners te selecteren en samenwerkingsmodellen te ontwikkelen, kan de overheid wel bijdragen aan het ontstaan van bloeiende netwerken: diverse vormen van netwerken, clusters en EIP operationele groepen, van lokaal tot Europees niveau, die het innovatieproces een impuls geven. Milieu: De gewenste samenwerking draagt bij aan innovaties die leiden tot een zuiniger grondstoffengebruik en een betere kringloopsluiting, met als resultaat emissievermindering van milieubelastende stoffen (zoals ammoniak, nutriënten en bestrijdingsmiddelen) en vermindering van uitputting van inputs en voorraden (zoals water, fosfor en bodemvruchtbaarheid). Het kan er toe bijdragen dat de biodiversiteit beter wordt beschermd of als ecosysteemdienst wordt benut. Samen- werking in de agroketen kan ook bijdragen aan het verminderen van marktfalen en spill overs (externe effecten) door te zoeken naar methoden om de kosten voor boven-wettelijke milieumaatregelen (op het agrarische bedrijfsniveau) deels uit de markt te halen. Vermindering en aanpassing van klimaatverandering: De samenwerkingsverbanden worden onder meer ingezet voor be- drijfsmaatregelen en innovaties die leiden tot een zuiniger energiegebruik, omschakeling op hernieuwbare energie en reductie van het gebruik van fossiele energie, met als resultaat emissievermindering van klimaatgassen. 8.2.1.4. Omvang, aard en niveau van de steun Naam van de sub-maatregel 1. Samenwerking voor proefprojecten en voor de ontwikkeling van nieuwe producten, praktijken, processen en technieken in de landbouw- en de voedingsmiddelensector

Beschrijving Samenwerkingsverbanden voor het verder ontwikkelen, valideren en verfijnen van innovaties in de vorm van proefprojecten. Dit kan betrekking hebben op het samen ontwikkelen van nieuwe product-markt-combinaties, waarbij meerwaarde wordt gecreëerd door bijvoorbeeld maatschappelijk gewenste maatregelen in het productieproces (zoals milieu en dieren- welzijn) in keten en de markt te verwaarden. Met praktijken wordt onder meer verwezen naar landbouw bedrijfsmaatrege- len zoals bijvoorbeeld water- en bodemmanagement, agrarisch natuurbeheer en in de dierhouderij. Deze sub-maatregel biedt ook het kader voor ondersteuning van de ontwikkeling van technieken en methodes die feitelijk aanpassingen zijn van bestaande technologie, etc naar situaties waar ze nog niet worden gebruikt. Een proefproject dient uiteindelijk onderdeel te vormen van een groter ontwikkelingsproces gericht op grootschalige toepassing van innovaties in de praktijk. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld gestart worden door kleine actieve groepen (living labs) met een schil van koplopers (early adapters). Soort ondersteuning Subsidie. Link met andere wetgeving Geen. Subsidiabele kosten

106 1. Kosten van haalbaarheidsstudies, inventarisaties, bedrijfs- en beheersplannen, ontwikkelingsplannen en lokale ont- wikkelingsstrategieën, anders dan bedoeld in art 29. 2. Kosten voor werven van deelnemers en het netwerken om het project goed te definiëren en op te starten. 3. Coördinatiekosten voor de samenwerking zelf, bijvoorbeeld door de inzet van een coördinator, materiaalkosten, vergaderfaciliteiten en bureaukosten. 4. Fysieke investeringen van het samenwerkingsverband tot een maximum van 50% van de totale subsidiabele kosten. 5. Eigen arbeid van de projectdeelnemers.

Uitgesloten zijn kosten gericht op reguliere bedrijfsvoering van bestaande reguliere samenwerkingsactiviteiten. Begunstigden Samenwerkingsverbanden en andere actoren die een nieuwe activiteit beginnen in de landbouwsector en de voedselketen. Instapvoorwaarden Geen Principes voor het vaststellen van selectiecriteria Er zal geselecteerd worden op basis van tenders. De selectiecriteria moeten meetbaar en verifieerbaar zijn. Bij het uitschrijven van de tenders worden de selectiecriteria kenbaar gemaakt. Daarbij wordt gedacht aan criteria als:  De mate waarin een project aan het aandachtsgebied/de aandachtsgebieden bijdraagt.  Integraliteit: het project scoort hoger naarmate er aan meer aandachtsgebieden bijgedragen wordt.  Uitrolbaarheid van het project naar grotere groep.  Kosteneffectiviteit van het project: het project scoort hoger naarmate de verhouding kosten/verwachte bijdrage aan doelen waarop de innovatie gericht is, hoger is.  Opbrengst van het project.  Eigen bijdrage t.o.v. totale investering.

Er kan gebruik worden gemaakt van een beoordelingscommissie, die de aanvragen beoordeelt en rangschikt en daarover advies uitbrengt aan de bevoegde. Projecten met een beoordeling boven een vooraf vastgestelde grenswaarde, worden goedgekeurd. Wanneer het totaal van de aanvragen een groter beslag legt op de beschikbare middelen (subsidieplafond) krijgen de aanvragen met de meeste punten voorrang (ranking). Aanvragen die niet gehonoreerd worden vanwege een gebrek aan middelen, kunnen in de opvolgende tender opnieuw meedingen. De overheid kan hierbij selectief te werk gaan door de regeling alleen open te stellen voor specifieke problemen, gebieden, groepen van agrarische ondernemers of periodes en dergelijke. Steunbedrag en steunpercentages Maximaal 100% voor de samenwerkingsvorm en 40% voor investeringen. EU-bijdrage in de totale overheidsbijdrage: 50% Naam van de sub-maatregel 1. De oprichting en werking van operationele groepen in het kader van het EIP voor de productiviteit en duurzaamheid in de landbouw Beschrijving Het EIP voor de productiviteit en duurzaamheid in de landbouw: a) bevordert een hulpbronnenefficiënte, economisch levensvatbare, productieve, concurrerende, emissiearme en kli- maatvriendelijke en -bestendige landen bosbouw-sector, die naar agro-ecologische productiesystemen toewerkt en harmonieus gebruik maakt van de essentiële natuurlijke hulpbronnen waarvan de landen bosbouw afhankelijk zijn; b) helpt te zorgen voor een constante en duurzame voorziening met zowel bestaande als nieuwe levensmiddelen, voe- ders en biomaterialen; c) verbetert processen met het oog op milieubehoud en klimaatadaptatie en -mitigatie; d) slaat bruggen tussen kennis en technologie met betrekking tot het meest geavanceerde onderzoek enerzijds en landbouwers, bosbeheerders, plattelandsgemeenschappen, bedrijven, ngo's en adviesdiensten anderzijds.

Om dit te realiseren wordt de oprichting van operationele groepen bevorderd die deel uit maken van het EIP voor de productiviteit en duurzaamheid in de landbouw. Er wordt een EIP-netwerk ingevoerd om met name het proces van oprichting te ondersteunen en de uitwisseling van ervaringen tussen en binnen de operationele groepen te bevorderen. Het EIP-netwerk met de operationele groepen voor de productiviteit en duurzaamheid in de landbouw tracht zijn doelstellingen te verwezenlijken door: a) meerwaarde te creëren door het onderzoek en de landbouwpraktijk beter op elkaar af te stemmen, en het op bredere schaal gebruiken van beschikbare innovatiemaatregelen aan te moedigen;

107 b) het sneller en ruimer in praktijk brengen van innovatieve oplossingen te bevorderen; en c) de wetenschappelijke gemeenschap te informeren over de onderzoeksbehoeften van de landbouwpraktijk.

De operationele groepen van het EIP stellen interne procedures vast die hun transparante werking en besluitvorming ga- randeren en belangenconflicten voorkomen. De innovatieve acties voeren de operationele groepen uit via door de programma's voor plattelandsontwikkeling gefinancierde maatregelen Soort ondersteuning Subsidie. Link met andere wetgeving Geen. Subsidiabele kosten 1) Kosten voor het opstellen van een uitvoeringsplan van de operationele groepen, met daarin onder andere: a) een beschrijving van het te ontwikkelen, te testen, aan te passen of uit te voeren innovatieve project; b) een beschrijving van de verwachte resultaten en van de bijdrage aan de EIP-doelstelling om de productiviteit en het duurzame beheer van hulpbronnen te verbeteren. 2) Voor wat betreft de kosten voor het uitvoeren van hun innovatieve projecten: Coördinatiekosten voor de samenwerking van de operationele groepen ten behoeve van besluiten over de uitwerking en de uitvoering van innovatieve acties (bijvoorbeeld door de inzet van een coördinator, vergaderfaciliteiten en bureaukosten); 3) De kosten voor het verspreiden van de resultaten van het project, met name via het EIP-netwerk. 4) Kosten voor het werven van deelnemers en het netwerken om het project goed te definiëren en op te starten, al dan niet met hulp van een innovatiemakelaar. 5) Fysieke investeringen van het samenwerkingsverband tot een maximum van 50% van de totale subsidiabele kosten. 6) Eigen arbeid van de projectdeelnemers.

Uitgesloten zijn kosten gericht op reguliere bedrijfsvoering en bestaande reguliere samenwerkingsactiviteiten. Begunstigden De operationele groepen van het EIP voor de productiviteit en duurzaamheid in de landbouw worden opgericht door be- langhebbende actoren zoals landbouwers, onderzoekers, adviseurs en bedrijven die betrokken zijn bij de landbouw- en voedingssector, die van belang zijn voor het verwezenlijken van de doelstellingen van het EIP. Instapvoorwaarden Geen. Principes voor het vaststellen van selectiecriteria Er zal geselecteerd worden op basis van tenders. De selectiecriteria moeten meetbaar en verifieerbaar zijn. Bij het uitschrijven van de tenders worden de selectiecriteria kenbaar gemaakt. Daarbij wordt gedacht aan criteria als:  De mate waarin een project aan het aandachtsgebied/de aandachtsgebieden bijdraagt.  Integraliteit: het project scoort hoger naarmate er aan meer aandachtsgebieden bijgedragen wordt.  Uitrolbaarheid van het project naar grotere groep.  Kosteneffectiviteit van het project: het project scoort hoger naarmate de verhouding kosten/verwachte bijdrage aan doelen waarop de innovatie gericht is, hoger is.  Opbrengst van het project.  Eigen bijdrage t.o.v. totale investering.

108 PM 8.2.1.5.1 Risico’s bij het implementeren van de maatregel PM 8.2.1.5.2. Mitigerende acties die mogelijk zijn PM 8.2.1.5.3. Overall beoordeling van de maatregel PM 8.2.1.6 Methodologie voor berekening van steunbedrag, als relevant Geen 8.2.1.7 Overige relevante opmerkingen Geen 8.3. aanvullende informatie voor de specifieke maatregel (uit Annex II van het Working Paper Elements of strategic programming): 8.3.1. Definitie de ‘plaatselijke context’ ten behoeve van promotie en afzetbevordering (ten behoeve van art 36.2.e) - Niet van toepassing omdat niet voor submaatregel 36.2.e is gekozen. 8.3.2. Wijze van steunverlening voor de uitvoering van businessplannen - In de Workingpaper wordt verwezen naar 36.6: Indien een bedrijfsplan, een milieuplan of een bosbeheerplan of een gelijk- waardig instrument, of een ontwikkelingsstrategie wordt uitgevoerd, kunnen de lidstaten de steun verlenen in de vorm van een forfaitair bedrag dat de kosten van de samenwerking en de kosten van de uitvoering van de projecten dekt, of kunnen zij steun verlenen die slechts de kosten van de samenwerking dekt en dan voor de uitvoering van de projecten gebruik maken van financiële middelen die beschikbaar zijn in het kader van andere maatregelen of andere fondsen van de Unie. Hierover zijn nog enkele vragen voordat het ingevuld kan worden: zie aparte vragenlijst! 8.3.3. Specificering van de eigenschappen van pilotprojecten, clusters, netwerken, korte toeleverings ketens en plaatselijke markten - Pilotproject: betreft proefproject dat tot doel heeft om innovaties te testen in de praktijk, voordat de innovaties veilig op grote schaal kunnen worden toegepast. Dit testen houdt in het verder ontwikkelen, valideren en verfijnen van praktische kennis en technologie door een groep van koplopers. Het gaat hier vaak om aanpassing van bestaande technologie, etc. naar situaties waar deze nog niet worden toegepast. De andere definities zijn niet noodzakelijk, want worden in dit maatregelfiche niet apart benoemd.

109

5 Proposed budget allocation POP3 This appendix shows the proposed budget allocation in POP3 per part of the country. In Dutch.

Rijk Landsdeel Noord Landsdeel Oost Landsdeel West Landsdeel Zuid 2a. Innovatie modernisering landbouw 15,3 11,4 15,7 14,3

2a. herstructurering landbouw 13,6 10,1 14 12,7 2b. verjonging van de sector 4,7 3,5 4,9 4,4 4a. afspraken ANB 65,5 37,7 50 26,7 4a afspraken ganzen 22,3 6,8 3,6 2,2 4a. herstel en beheer biodiversiteit en landschap 6,2 4,6 6,4 5,8 4a. afspraken hydrologische maatregelen PAS 8,5 7,7 4,3 9,4 4b. verbeteren waterbeheer 23,6 17,5 24,3 22 6b leader 10,2 7,6 10,5 9,5 GMI /brede weersverzekering 21 0 TB 0 Water internationale doelen 37,9 28,1 38,9 35,2 bedragen in mln. euro 2014-2020 21 207,8 135 172,6 142,2

110

6 Overview of Dutch innovation measures and funds This appendix provides an overview of Dutch innovation measures and funds. This memorandum is produced by the TKI bureau of the top sector Agri Food.

The appendix is in Dutch.

Notitie Heisessie TKI Agri&Food bureau 3 februari

Overzicht fondsen:

1. EU H2020

Het landschap van Europese samenwerking in onderzoek en innovatie voor Agri & Food en

Tuinbouw & Uitgangsmaterialen is complex (en dynamisch) door het groot aantal initiatieven.

De strategie zoals deze is vastgelegd in het IC bestaat uit 4 componenten die onderling sterk met elkaar samenhangen als communicerende vaten. Veranderingen in één van deze componenten zullen uitwerking hebben op de resultaten van Nederland in de andere componenten.

Horizon 2020

Horizon 2020 biedt een scala aan mogelijkheden en instrumenten. Voor de topsector Agri & Food zijn het meest relevant de societal challenges, excellent research en het MKB instrument binnen industrial leadership.

Meest relevante instrumenten in H2020

Pijler Instrument Doel Financiering Excellent Science European Research Grensverleggend ex- * beurzen met ver- Council (verschillende cellent onderzoek schillende maxima beurzen) gebaseerd op ervaring wetenschapper Marie Sklodovska Cu- Training en carrière 100% salariskosten + rie (verschillende ontwikkeling toelagen beurzen) Industrial Leadership SME Instrument Phase Haalbaarheid studie €50.000 lump sum 1 SME Instrument Phase Valorisatie 70% directe kosten 2 (max €2,5M) SME Instrument Phase Commercialisatie van Geen, lateraal beleid 3 producten (coach voor SMEs) Societal Challenges* Research and Innova- Verwerven en toepas- 100% directe kosten + tion Action sen van nieuwe kennis 25% flat rate voor indi- recte kosten Innovation Action Toepassen en demon- 70% directe kosten + steren van innovaties 25% flat rate voor indi- recte kosten

111

Coordination Action Coördinatie activitei- 100% directe kosten + ten rond onderzoek en 25% flat rate voor indi- innovatie recte kosten *De meest relevante societal challenges zijn: Food Security & Bioeconomy, Health en Environment

Knowlegde and Innovation Community (KIC)

De KIC’s zijn gericht op de verbinding van onderzoek, onderwijs en innovatie ten behoeve van onder- nemerschap. De doelstelling is dat er regionale knooppunten komen voor kennisvalorisatie. Deze hubs hebben een sterke Europese uitstraling naar bedrijven.

Een call voor een KIC op het gebied van agrifood staat gepland voor 2016. In de komende twee jaar zal de topsector zich voorbereiden op deze call en een doorwrocht business plan ontwikkelen voor de KIC. Met name een sterkere betrokkenheid van het bedrijfsleven, en specifiek het MKB, bij de KIC zal onderdeel uitmaken van deze plannen.

Financiering*

Instrument Doel Financiering KIC Start-up grant Ontwikkelen KIC business plan 100% directe kosten en inhuren KIC personeel €2 – 4 M KIC Added Value Activities Activiteiten gericht op verster- 100% directe kosten ken integratie kennisdriehoek: onderwijs – onderzoek - onder- nemen *De totale financiering van KIC is gemaximaliseerd op 25% van de directe kosten van alle activiteiten binnen een KIC.

European Innovation Partnership (EIP)

Het EIP Duurzame en Productieve Landbouw heeft als doelstelling om innovaties op het boerenerf te stimuleren met als doel om een competitieve, duurzame en productie primaire sector te ontwikkelen in Europa. Het EIP moet de brug slaan tussen de innovatievragen bij de boer en de Europese onder- zoeksprogramma’s. Om deze brug te kunnen slaan, worden zogenaamde Operational Groups opgericht op allerlei voor de landbouw belangrijke thema’s (bijv. zuivel en zetmeel).

Instrument

Instrument Doel Financiering Operational Group* Opzetten innovatieagenda voor Nationale/regionale financier- inzet POP middelen ing * Er is nu een pilot operational Group gefinancierd door EZ voor activiteiten in 2014.

Joint Technology Initiatives en ERA-netten

JPIs en ERA-netten richten zich op een verbeterde coördinatie en afstemming van de publieke nationale onderzoekprogrammering en het nationale innovatiebeleid van de verschillende lidstaten.

JPIs zijn brede programma’s voor coördinatie van onderzoeksprogrammering tussen lidstaten met de maatschappelijke uitdagingen als uitgangspunt. ERA-netten stimuleren samenwerking door middel

112

van gezamenlijke calls op specifieke wetenschappelijke of technologische gebieden. ERA-net cofund zijn Era-netten waarin de EC voor maximaal 50% participeert.

Instrument Doel Financiering JPI-FACCE Opstellen gezamenlijke R&D NWO (3,5M) programma’s duurzame landbouw en klimaatverandering JPI-HDHL Opstellen gezamenlijke R&D ZonMW (4,5M) programma’s gezonde voeding *ERA-net Samenwerking R&D projecten EZ **ERA-net cofund Samenwerking R&D projecten EZ + max. 50% top-up van de EC * lopende Era-netten onder KP7

** nieuwe ERA-netten onder H2020

Overicht lopende Agri & Food ERA-netten waarin EZ participeert

ERA-net Omschrijving Platform Coördinatie ERA-netten in agri, food, bioeconomy CORE-organic Biologische landbouw ARD Ontwikkelingsamenwerking EUPHRESCO Fytosanitair beleid SUSFOOD Duurzame voedselsystemen ANIHWAH Diergezondheid & -welzijn ICT-AGRI Landbouw en ICT Integrated Pest Management Gewasbescherming

Link met NWO

In het Innovatiecontract is de bijdrage van NWO opgenomen. Dit is zowel in 2014 als in 2015 vastge- steld, nl op €15,4 mln. Een deel hiervan heeft betrekking op de internationale programmering van Agri&Food. Nadere toelichting:

 In het NWO bedrag zit ook een reservering voor het Europese JPI-programma FACCE €3,6 mln verdeeld over 2 jaar.  In het NWO onderdeel LSH zit een reservering van €4,5 mln voor voor het Europese JPI- programma Healthy Diet Healthy Life verdeeld over 2 jaar. Dit programma is formeel onder budget van LSH geboekt, het gaat om een cross-over programma A&F en LSH.  EZ heeft daarnaast besloten om de internationale ambities van de sector nader tegemoet te komen, en stelt daarvoor een budget van €3 tot €4 mln beschikbaar over 2 jaar (bovenop de €15,4 mln). De nadere invulling moet in overleg tussen NWO en het topteam vorm worden gegeven. Deze valt samen met de transitie TTI en het Grand Design en kan hiervoor worden benut.

2. Regionale instrumenten

Voor overleg EZ, regio’s en MKB leden topteams is eind november 2013 een overzicht gemaakt van regionale instrumenten. Dit is als bijlage opgenomen.

113

3. EFRO

Voor de periode 2014-2020 zal het EFRO beschikken over een bedrag van 183,3 miljard euro, een daling ten opzichte van de 201 miljard die in het vorige meerjarig financieel kader beschikbaar was. Nederland zal hiervan naar verwachting circa 500 miljoen euro mogen verdelen, waarvan 190 miljoen voor het landsdeel West, 114 miljoen voor Zuid, 104 miljoen voor Noord en 100 miljoen euro voor Oost. In de periode 2007-2013 ontving Nederland nog 830 miljoen euro. Een voorwaarde hiervoor is dat dit bedrag door de Nederlandse overheid of private bedrijven wordt verdubbeld.

Uitgangspunt voor EFRO is dat wordt bijgedragen aan de nationale doelen in het kader van de

Europa2020 strategie. In dit verband zijn belangrijke uitdagingen voor Nederland het verhogen van de investeringen in innovatie, onderzoek en ontwikkeling en het verhogen van het aandeel duurzame energie. Er is vastgelegd dat Nederland, net als andere ontwikkelde lidstaten, EFRO middelen voor 80% inzet op één of meerdere van de volgende doelen: innovatie, midden- en kleinbedrijf en koolstofarme economie. Minimaal 20% moet worden ingezet op koolstofarme economie.

Eerder werd tussen Rijk en decentrale overheden overeengekomen dat het voortouw voor het opstellen van de zogenaamde Operationele Programma’s voor EFRO bij de landsdelen Noord, Oost, Zuid en West ligt en dat de programma’s zich richten op de bijdrage van de regio aan de topsectoren. Ook in de huidige periode wordt er gewerkt met Operationele Programma’s per landsdeel. Het bedrijfsleven (waaronder topteams), kennisinstellingen, maatschappelijke organisaties, steden en andere partners worden actief betrokken bij de uitwerking van de hoofddoelen in de Operationele Pro- gramma’s (vraagsturing). Basis voor de Operationele Programma’s vormen de ‘slimme specialisatie strategieën’ (S3) die per landsdeel zijn opgesteld. Het opstellen van deze strategieën vloeit voort uit de verordeningen. In deze strategieën formuleren regio’s doelen en keuzes op het gebied van innovatie. De strategieën gaan verder dan de inzet van EFRO. Er wordt verband gelegd met regionaal en nationaal beleid (o.a. topsectoren) en andere EU Programma’s. De Operationele Programma’s worden door het Rijk getoetst op Europese kaders en afgesproken uitgangspunten en eind 2013/begin 2014, samen met de ‘slimme specialisatie strategieën’, ter goedkeuring aan de Europese Commissie voorgelegd. De goedkeuring zal waarschijnlijk 3-6 maanden duren. Naar verwachting gaat het EFRO- loket einde zomer/september dit jaar open voor het aanvragen van subsidie.

Met de bestuurders van decentrale overheden heeft EZ afgesproken decentrale uitvoering van EFRO onder voorwaarden te continueren. Dit betekent dat de landsdelen Noord, Oost, Zuid en West ver- antwoordelijk blijven voor het subsidieproces. Hieronder is nadere informatie opgenomen over de focus van de 4 landsdelen.

Oost-Nederland

Oost-Nederland (Gelderland/Overijssel) krijgt de komende jaren honderd miljoen euro van de Euro- pese Unie om innovaties en een koolstofarme economie te stimuleren. Het Rijk doet daar nog eens zeventien miljoen bij. Gelderland en Overijssel cofinancieren zelf 48 miljoen. Verwacht wordt dat het bedrijfsleven 120 miljoen investeert. Alles bij elkaar betekent dat voor de jaren 2014-2020 in totaal € 285 miljoen beschikbaar komt voor innovatie en voor een koolstofarme economie.

114

Oost-Nederland zetten in op vier gebieden: High Tech Systemen en Materialen (HTSM), gezondheid (Health), Agrofood en Energie & Milieutechnologie (EMT). Binnen die sectoren beschouwen Gelder- land en Overijssel ICT, water, chemie, de creatieve en de maakindustrie als sleuteltechnologieën. Vooral het midden- en kleinbedrijf en het onderwijs in Overijssel en Gelderland kunnen de komende jaren aanspraak maken op EFRO-subsidies. Een dergelijke impuls blijkt het meeste effect te hebben als bedrijfsleven, onderwijs en overheid samen optrekken. Projecten waarin die drie goed samenwerken, maken daarom de meeste kans op een EFRO-subsidie.

Noord-Nederland

De smart specilisation strategie (RIS3) Noord-Nederland (Friesland/Groningen/Drenthe) richt zich op 4 maatschappelijke opgaven, living lab en geïntegreerde projecten. De focus ligt op MKB, Innovatie en Koolstofarm. De beschikbare middelen EFRO zijn 104 miljoen euro, daarnaast is er een rijkscofinanciering van 18,5 miljoen euro. Het definitieve concept OP EFRO Noord wordt in januari aangebo- den aan EZ. Verwachte goedkeuring EC medio 2014.

Binnen de thematische doelstelling innovatie (met inzet van 76 procent van de financiële middelen) richt Noord-Nederland zich op de investeringsprioriteiten ‘verbeteren van R&D infrastructuur’ en ‘bevorderen van bedrijfsinvesteringen in innovatie en onderzoek’. Bij de verbetering van R&D infrastructuur voor onderzoek en innovatie wordt specifiek ingezet op het versterken van een blijvende aansluiting tussen opleiding en bedrijfsleven, en verbetering van het innovatief vermogen van het MKB door (private) kennisontwikkeling. Het bevorderen van bedrijfsinvesteringen wordt gerealiseerd door het stimuleren van innovatietrajecten. De thematische doelstelling koolstofarme economie (met inzet van 20 procent van de financiële middelen) richt zich op het bevorderen van onderzoek en innovatie in CO2 arme technologieën. Focus ligt hierbij op het ontwikkeling van kennis door en met het MKB, het stimuleren innovatietrajecten en innovatieve toepassing van producten, diensten en concepten (slimme uitrol).

West-Nederland

De volgende drie ontwikkelingen in West Nederland (provincies Zuid-Holland, Noord-Holland, Utrecht en Flevoland en de vier grote steden Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag en Utrecht) zijn bepalend geweest voor de keuzes die binnen het Programma Kansen voor West zijn gemaakt:

 Landsdeel West kampt met achterblijvende investeringen van bedrijven, in het bijzonder het MKB, in onderzoek en ontwikkeling.  Er is sprake van een zeer beperkte toepassing van hernieuwbare energiebronnen. Tevens blijven investeringen in energie-efficiency achter.  Realisatie van economische en sociale samenhang binnen de grote steden blijft een aan- dachtspunt.

Voor elk van deze ontwikkelingen is in het Programma een aantal doelstellingen geformuleerd, met bijbehorende acties en beoogde resultaten. Bijna 62% van het beschikbare budget voor het Pro- gramma Kansen voor West zal worden ingezet op projecten gericht op innovatie.

Wat betreft de inzet op innovatie. Het MKB en de kennisinstellingen weten elkaar echter nog onvol- doende te vinden. Daarnaast blijkt dat bedrijven die willen innoveren moeite hebben financiers te vinden die bereid zijn te investeren in de eerste fase van de ontwikkeling van nieuwe producten

115

en/of diensten en in de groeifase. Deze knelpunten leiden ertoe dat innovatiekansen onbenut blijven. Het Programma heeft daarom de volgende twee doelstellingen geformuleerd, gericht op de negen topsectoren in Landsdeel West, in het bijzonder op de cross-overs tussen de sectoren en de nichemarkten:

1. Het stimuleren van de ontwikkeling van (met name internationaal) vermarktbare producten en diensten. 2. De beschikbaarheid van kapitaal voor innovaties bij startende en doorgroeiende MKB’ers bevorderen en de toeleiding naar dit kapitaal verbeteren.

Deze doelstellingen zijn vertaald naar de volgende actielijnen:

 Bevorderen van samenwerkingsprojecten tussen bedrijven en kennisinstellingen (valorisatie) op het gebied van industrieel onderzoek en experimentele ontwikkeling. Voorwaarde daarbij is dat het bedrijfsleven in de ‘lead’ is en ook zelf investeert.  Stimuleren van de ontwikkeling en toepassing van kennis in nieuwe producten en diensten in maatschappelijke sectoren door het opzetten van proeftuinen en demonstratiecentra.  Het versterken van de bereidheid en kansen van het innovatieve MKB om samen te werken in clusters en netwerken door het ondersteunen van aanjaagprojecten en het uitstippelen van roadmaps.  Financiering van innovatieve technologische ontwikkelingen in het MKB, bijvoorbeeld via be- drijfsregelingen, eventueel gecombineerd met revolverende fondsen.  Financiering van de fase waarin een idee omgezet moet worden in een concreet product/dienst (proof of concept financiering) door fondsen.  Financiering van de fase van commercialisering van nieuwe producten/diensten (groeifinan- ciering) door revolverende fondsen.  Toeleiding naar kapitaal voor ondersteuningsprojecten op het gebied van voorlichting, hulp bij het schrijven

Zuid-Nederland

In Zuid (Brabant/Limburg/Zeeland) iggen er economische kansen met een maatschappelijke meerwaarde binnen en vooral in samenwerking tussen een selectief aantal topclusters, die in belangrijke mate aansluiten op de nationale topsectoren maar daar niet volledig mee samenvallen. Er zijn drie in-ternationale topclusters aan te duiden in Zuid-Nederland, te weten:

 Agrofood en T&U, de combinatie van de (nationale) topsectoren ‘Agro & Food’ en ‘Tuinbouw en uitgangsmaterialen’;  High-tech systems en materialen;  Chemie en materialen.

In aansluiting daarop zijn vier nationale topclusters met internationale potentie geïdentificeerd, nl:

 Life Sciences & Health;  Biobased;  Logistiek;  Maintenance.

Voor het landsdeel Zuid geldt dat innovatiebevordering het centrale thema is in de regionaal- economische strategieën, zoals die zijn gebundeld in de RIS3. Daar gaat de hoogste prioriteit naar uit.

116

Bij verbeteren van R&D infrastructuur wordt beoogd een betere afstemming tussen vraag en aanbod van de arbeidsmarkt te realiseren, waarbij aangesloten wordt bij het Techniekpact. Het bevorderen van bedrijfsinvesteringen richt zich op het versterken van samenwerking tussen (grote) bedrijven en kennisinstellingen, met een nadruk op versteviging van de positie van het MKB. Ook wordt ingezet op versterking van het valorisatievermogen van het MKB binnen de internationale en nationale topclus- ter. Dit laatste moet resulteren in een verhoging van het percentage van de omzet dat bedrijven halen uit de verkoop van nieuwe producten en diensten. Om de kansen van onderaf te benutten zet het landsdeel in op versterken van het open innovatiesysteem en methoden en processen die daar bij aansluiten: living labs, proeftuinen, co-creatie, sociale innovatie en het benutten van design. De inzet in dit OP moet vooral complementair zijn aan nationale en regionale innovatieinstrumenten. Dat betekent aan de innovatiekant een accent op samenwerking en ontwikkeling (met de mogelijkheid van subsidies en een revolverende inzet).

4. Interreg

Interreg is er voor overheden, bedrijven en kennisinstellingen om oplossingen te vinden voor gezamenlijke problemen op het gebied van bijvoorbeeld water en milieu en om kennis en ervaring met elkaar te delen.

In de huidige vorm zijn er 3 verschillende Interreg-programma’s. Deze zijn gericht op samenwerking:

 in de grensregio’s (Interreg A);  tussen regio’s in verschillende landen (Interreg B);  door heel Europa heen, dus niet gebonden aan een bepaald gedeelte van het grondgebied van de EU (Interreg C).

Voor Agri & Food zijn er twee projecten van belang in het kader van het huidige Interreg

Food2Market Ondersteuning van ondernemers op Nederland- se, Vlaamse en Duitse markt. Vooral gericht op ontwikkelen nieuwe markten over de grens. Project loopt tot mei 2014. FoodFuture Financiering van grensoverschrijdende (Oost Nederland-NRW en Niedersachsen, innovatie- projecten in food. Financiering op basis van INTERREG tarieven. Verdere ondersteuning met makelaars en workshops.

Het vijfde Interreg programma start in het najaar van 2014. Er zijn daarin voor Nederland vier Inter- reg-programma’s specifiek van belang: Duitsland-Nederland, Vlaanderen-Nederland, Twee Zeeën en Euregio Maas-Rijn (EMR). Nederland is in de periode 2007-2013 lidstaatverantwoordelijk voor het EMR-programma. De prioriteiten van NL voor de grensoverschrijdende programma’s (Interreg) liggen bij de bijdrage aan de Europa 2020 agenda via de thema’s innovatie, koolstofarme economie en ar- beidsmobiliteit.

117

Het bedrag van 389 miljoen euro voor grensoverschrijdende programma’s (Interreg A en B) dat Ne- derland zal ontvangen voor de nieuwe programmaperiode 2014-2020 moet verdeeld worden over de vier Interreg-programma’s. Voor de nieuwe programmaperiode is totaal 49 miljoen euro Rijkscofi- nanciering beschikbaar op de EZ-begroting voor de Interreg programma’s. Deze bedragen worden voor zeven jaar toegekend aan de programma’s. De kaders voor Rijkscofinanciering worden thans uitgewerkt. EZ stuurt op projecten die aansluiten op o.a. topsectoren.

5. POP

Het plattelandsbeleid is de tweede pijler van het GLB. Voor de periode 2014-2020 is ten behoeve van het plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma (POP3) voor Nederland 607 miljoen euro (per jaar circa 85 miljoen euro) beschikbaar uit het Europees Landbouwfonds voor Plattelandsontwikkeling (ELFPO). Uit nationale middelen moet nationale cofinanciering worden bijgedragen. De verplichte cofinancie- ringspercentages hangen samen met de afzonderlijke maatregelen.

Het nieuwe wetgevingskader voor het GLB maakt het mogelijk om in POP3 (de uitvoering van ELFPO) een keuze te maken uit verschillende maatregelen ten gunste van de agrarische sector. Met deze maatregelen moet worden bijgedragen aan minimaal vier van de zes vastgestelde Europese platte- landsprioriteiten. Dit zijn 1) innovatie en kennisoverdracht, 2) concurrentiekrachtversterking, 3) organisatie van de voedselketen en risicobeheer, 4) beschermen van ecosystemen, 5) duurzaam grond- stofgebruik en CO2 reductie en 6) economische ontwikkeling in plattelandsgebieden. Minimaal 5% van de beschikbare middelen moet worden ingezet voor LEADER, de bottum up benadering voor lokale initiatieven en minimaal 30% moet worden ingezet voor maatregelen gericht op natuur en milieu, zoals bijvoorbeeld agrarisch natuurbeheer.

De Staatssecretaris heeft met de provincies een akkoord bereikt over de invulling van het POP3 voor de periode 2014-2020. POP3 wordt landsdelig ingevuld door de provincies en aangevuld door het Rijk. Met de landsdelige aanpak kunnen specifieke behoeftes in de landbouw worden aangepakt. Aan generieke behoeftes wordt landsdekkend invulling gegeven. Met deze combinatie kan zo goed mogelijk ingespeeld worden op het bevorderen van een gelijk speelveld. De provincies leveren het groot- ste deel van de cofinanciering voor POP3 aangevuld met cofinanciering van de waterschappen. Zo is geprobeerd maximaal effect te genereren van de beschikbare Europese middelen, die ten gunste zullen komen van de agrariër en landbouwgronden

Innovatie van de landbouw is samen met het verduurzaming de belangrijkste opgave voor de agrarische sector om een krachtige concurrentiepositie te behouden. POP wil innovatie van de landbouw en het versterken van de concurrentiepositie daarom stimuleren met een samenhangend pakket van generieke en gebiedsgerichte maatregelen. Met dit pakket wordt het mogelijk om onderzoek en kennis beter te benutten voor de praktijk. Dit gebeurt door het ondersteunen van samenwerkingsverbanden. Een voorbeeld hiervan is het onderstenen van operationele innovatie groepen onder het Europese Innovatie Partnerschap, waarmee ook de relatie met de Horizon2020 gelegd. Vervolgens kan de kennisoverdracht in de vorm van trainingen, demonstraties, praktijknetwerken verder worden gestimuleerd. Eventueel benodigde fysieke investeringen voor agrariërs worden enerzijds ondersteund voor het ontwikkelen van nieuwe prototypes die in de praktijk getest moeten worden alsme- de voor de uitrol van innovaties in de landen tuinbouw. Hierbij kan selectief gekeken worden specifieke problemen, gebieden en groepen van agrariërs. Aanvullend aan dit pakket wordt een landsdek-

118

kende garantstelling ingevoerd voor de marktintroductie voor risicovolle innovaties (GMI), zoals aan- gekondigd in de tuinbouwvisie, voor de tuinbouw en andere sectoren.

De verwevenheid met EFRO is vooral organisatorisch. POP3 is uitdrukkelijk gericht op de boer en zijn grond/ stallen. En de keten zover die dat dient. EFRO is veel breder, alle MKB bedrijven, etc.

119

120

121