TOWARDS OPERATIONAL GROUPS IN FRANCE Sonia Ramonteu ACTA

TOWARDS OPERATIONAL GROUPS IN FRANCE Sonia Ramonteu – ACTA With input from APCA, RAD-Civam, Trame

Content • 3 examples from recent history that could have been an operational group • 3 examples (real or imagined) that would not qualify as an operational group • What are bottlenecks in your country for farmers to discuss and be active in innovation? • How can EIP / Operational Groups address these bottlenecks? • How can Operational Groups be set up and farmers be motivated ? • What are bottlenecks in linking farmers with other stakeholders (business, ngo’s, research) ?

“existing” OG: case 1 : Valbiom • What challenge / opportunity does “OG” discuss? Development of a local productive system related to non-food valorisation of agro-resources, with eco-conception, based on local synergies between agricultural and industrial enterprises • How did the “OG” start, who initiated? Conference on bio-products agric. and trade&industry chambers launch a mission on bioproducts cluster : industry & agricultural enterprises, chambers, cooperatives, agricultural associations, research laboratories Obj. : promote local collaborations, identify and support projects (some with products on market), structure chain • What have been the key success factors for the “OG”? All farmers involved were all very interested in a new outlet (market) Co-construction with farmers groups Setting up of local synergies between farmers and industries • How have (national) policies contributed to the “OG”? Local authorities and national organism of territory development have funded the project

“existing” OG: case 2 : Système Terre et Eau • What challenge / opportunity does “OG” discuss? Animal production systems eco-efficient, thrifty, self-sufficient Grazing systems with objective to improve environmental impact, sustainability/viability of farm • How did the “OG” start, who initiated? Collaboration of Cedapa, study center on grazing systems, with INRA and regional authorities : characterisation and evaluation of sustainability of such systems Requirements/specifications written by farmers : “fodder systems input-saving” contract Recognition of these specifications as a national and european agri-environmental measure • What have been the key success factors for the “OG”? Strong direct involvement of farmers in a research-action process : methodology, collecting datas, steering the group and the project. Basic allowance for farmers = recognition of work of “farmer-researcher” • How have (national) policies contributed to the “OG”? Financial and technical involvement of regional authorities National and european recognition

“existing” OG: case 3 : RMT, Joint Technological Network, ex. Florad • What challenge / opportunity does “OG” discuss? Weed knowledge - management and control, and weeding (organic and conventional) Context : less herbicides authorised • How did the “OG” start, who initiated? Informal expert group of researchers (ITA-INRA), opened to agricultural chambers and high-schools, labelled at national level as JTN Obj. : promote and lead research projects on priority questions, provide operational knowledge and results, establish an expert group • What have been the key success factors for the “OG”? Federative collaborative projects successful in national competitive calls reinforced links between actors (so expertise recognised and mobilised) • How have (national) policies contributed to the “OG”? Slight coordination fund of the agriculture Ministry

Cases that would not qualify as OG Give a real or imagined example of a group that includes farmers, that according to your ideas would not be allowed to qualify as OG (or where you have doubts). • Local development projects with farmers and others actors of the territory : Lack of research perspective • Producers group under contract, linked to a firm or a retailer (dominated by private), with objective to maximize the margin • Trade union group of producers without research or innovation dimension

Bottlenecks for farmers to discuss and be active in innovation • Farmer capacity to innovate and adapt practices not recognized • Farmers were seen as final consumers of innovation in the framework of a very top-down transfer : research – development – farmers, like executors, underling, applicators of an innovation conceived by others, farmers had less initiatives and experimentation on their own system

How can EIP / Operational Groups address these bottlenecks? • Let farmers participate to governance of operational groups and be active/involve them in the setting up of projects • To compensate the time devoted by farmers to innovate in their practices, for experimentation in-situ

How can Operational Groups be set up and farmers be motivated ? • Farmers are motivated if their field needs and concerns and local initiatives are taken into account : involve them from the posing of an idea, the more upstream possible • To recognize the role of farmers as others actors : investment in time, money, land responsibilities or risks taken • Recognize farmers time to experiment and collect datas by compensations

Bottlenecks in linking farmers with other stakeholders? • Acquaintanceship is not optimal between actors, and actions are often fragmented • Divergent interests at short term, too much different problematics between researchers and farmers • GO role is indeed to promote dialogue, listening, mutual understanding