Rural innovation encompasses many different processes. One specific process is co-innovation or so-called ‘interactive innovation’. This involves diverse groups of farmers/foresters, advisors, researchers, entrepreneurs and others working together in partnership to find solutions to their day-to-day challenges and opportunities.



The LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu/) aimed to understand better what makes a successful partnership for co-innovation. Its findings have been used to prepare a series of five easy-to-use ‘How to Guides’ as tools for innovation practitioners.



The ‘Achieving Impact: How to Guide’ (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6474958) is one such tool. It explores ways, in which a group can disseminate their outcomes to a wider audience thus boosting their impact and highlights the relevance of measuring and evaluating the project’s impact even after its completion. More specifically it:



• Explores how to plan and enact a successful communication strategy to improve wider uptake of the project’s outcomes, including reaching out to wider audiences from the beginning and/or strategies to reach them once the project’s outcomes are clear

• Underlines the importance of engaging with key multipliers or ‘idea spreaders’, and describes their characteristics

• Analyses the different types of idea-scaling, the specific audiences for each, and the relevance of addressing the right groups

• Highlights potential barriers to sharing ideas and managing a wider uptake, and provides suggestions to overcome these

• Underlines the relevance of a monitoring and evaluating strategy that goes beyond the project life to understand its impact and legacy after it has ended.

Rural innovation encompasses many different processes. One specific process is co-innovation or so-called ‘interactive innovation’. This involves diverse groups of farmers/foresters, advisors, researchers, entrepreneurs and others working together in partnership to find solutions to their day-to-day challenges and opportunities.



The LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu/) aimed to understand better what makes a successful partnership for co-innovation. Its findings have been used to prepare a series of five easy-to-use ‘How to Guides’ as tools for innovation practitioners.



The ‘Connected Partnerships: How to Guide’ (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6474945) is one such tool. It explores ways in which a group can connect with stakeholders beyond the partnership throughout the project’s life, thus including new ideas and perspectives and ensuring the relevance of the outcomes to the project’s target groups. More specifically it:



• Explores how to identify, prioritise and engage with individual stakeholders and networks

• Underlines the importance of connecting with stakeholders to gain insight, feedback and acceptance of innovations and suggests facilitation tools to exchange with them

• Highlights the relevance of supporting “project champions” that engage with wider audiences and share the project’s outcomes

• Underlines the relevance of focusing on context-specific indicators to evaluate engagement and co-innovation activities with stakeholders and suggests tools from the LIAISON work that can help monitor them.

Rural innovation encompasses many different processes. One specific process is co-innovation or so-called ‘interactive innovation’. This involves diverse groups of farmers/foresters, advisors, researchers, entrepreneurs and others working together in partnership to find solutions to their day-to-day challenges and opportunities.



The LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu/) aimed to understand better what makes a successful partnership for co-innovation. Its findings have been used to prepare a series of five easy-to-use ‘How to Guides’ as tools for innovation practitioners.



The ‘Healthy Partnerships: How to Guide’ (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6474941) is one such tool. It explores key learnings to improve the quality of collaboration, communication and coordination in multi-actor partnerships. More specifically it:



• Identifies skills and characteristics of a good leader or project co-ordinator, and suggest ways to avoid getting caught up in day-to-day management

• Explores factors impacting effective co-innovation – both individual aspects and group dynamics – and suggests practices and activities to enhance cooperation

• Provides guidance on how to create a culture of collaboration and to enhance shared decision-making

• Underlines the impact different backgrounds can have when working together and the relevance of adapting the group’s strategies to address them when working in groups of actors with different competences

• Emphasises the relevance of continuous monitoring to assess how working relations are evolving within the partnership and, if necessary, to adapt the process and improve results

• Draws on LIAISON’s assessment and evaluation tools, helping to monitor and evaluate the cooperation process and the outcomes.

Rural innovation encompasses many different processes. One specific process is co-innovation or so-called ‘interactive innovation’. This involves diverse groups of farmers/foresters, advisors, researchers, entrepreneurs and others working together in partnership to find solutions to their day-to-day challenges and opportunities.



The LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu/) aimed to understand better what makes a successful partnership for co-innovation. Its findings have been used to prepare a series of five easy-to-use ‘How to Guides’ as tools for innovation practitioners.



The ‘Good Planning: How-to Guide’ (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6474896) is one such tool. It explores how to establish effective multi-actor partnerships to collaborate on innovation projects and activities. More specifically it:



• Provides guidance on developing effective new partnerships around a shared vision

• Explores leadership and management styles as well as key considerations when structuring roles and activities

• Analyses cooperation within the partnership and how to bring in the right set of competencies to collectively achieve interactive innovation

• Outlines the use of evaluation to monitor performance

• Suggests tools to monitor and evaluate activities and link results to key milestones and outcomes.

Rural innovation encompasses many different processes. One specific process is co-innovation or so-called ‘interactive innovation’. This involves diverse groups of farmers/foresters, advisors, researchers, entrepreneurs and others working together in partnership to find solutions to their day-to-day challenges and opportunities.



The LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu/) aimed to understand better what makes a successful partnership for co-innovation. Its findings have been used to prepare a series of five easy-to-use ‘How to Guides’ as tools for innovation practitioners.



The ‘Coming Together: How to Guide’ (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6474712) is one such tool. It explores the early phases of the co-innovation process including the process of idea generation and how to reach out to new and existing networks when developing a co-innovation partnership to turn ideas into reality. More specifically it:



• Identifies idea inception scenarios

• Explores how to engage with stakeholders to come together and co-develop a plan to make the idea into a reality. In particular, it highlights the cooperation with critical partners and the importance of accessing the right networks to find the best fit, including hard-to-reach actors or stakeholders

• Analyses key considerations when looking for suitable funding opportunities, and underscores relevant aspects required to maximise chances of success when applying to funding

• Underlines relevant leadership traits required to start a co-creative project

• Highlights relevant considerations around suitable funding

• Emphasises the relevance of setting a monitoring and evaluation plan from the start for the idea that will successfully become a reality.

Participatory methods can be used at any stage of a multi-actor (MA) project from the birth of a project idea until the embedding of project results. LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu/) created an interactive guide to support the work of project managers by helping identify the main 'human' challenges of MA projects and the participatory methods/tools that can be used.



Communication is a crucial activity in all MA projects. It is not only the basis for disseminating project results but also plays a key role in developing collective ownership of the work by partners. This process should start early in project planning and aim to build upon the diversity of skills within the MA project partnership. If relevant skills are not present, they should be sought and found.



Producing useful project results depends upon good communication to involve potential end-users as early as possible in the project work. Participatory methods can help to maintain end-user engagement throughout the project.



The ‘Focus group’ tool can be used for needs assessment and the ‘Collective feedback’ tool to facilitate users’ feedback. Regular feedback helps the project team to adapt project implementation and ensures usable and useful results. Ensuring that users feel considered, involved and listened to creates a relationship of trust and contribute to the impact of a project’s output. However, project information must be communicated in a language that users are familiar with by using an appropriate level of technicality and common terminology. Participatory methods can help enable the effective presentation of results, for example via reflections and discussions about using project outputs in concrete situations and the adaptations needed to be made.

Participatory methods can be used at any stage of a multi-actor (MA) project from the birth of a project idea until the embedding of project results. LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu/) created an interactive guide to support the work of project managers by helping identify the main 'human' challenges of MA projects and the participatory methods/tools that can be used.



This Practice Abstract focuses on building trust in a MA project. The first step is to create a community by bringing together people with different skills, knowledge and working habits. The tools chosen should be adapted to the group’s needs and specificities. Time is needed for the establishment of good collaboration and working relationships. A tool like ‘Photolanguage’ can be helpful. Transparent communication is also key.



Collective work and decision-making processes should be discussed and validated by all members of the MA project. A clear and shared work plan defining the basis for collaboration, expectations and timelines needs to be understood and shared by all. Common rules for meetings create an atmosphere favourable to open exchange. Tools such as the ‘Snowball technique’ can help to make decisions collectively.



Once group members feel confident, they are likely to participate actively and work together effectively. Different participatory tools can be used depending on the objective. For example, ‘Scenario design’ and ‘Back casting’ exercises can help to identify action plans for the achievement of envisaged outcomes. A shared review of the ongoing work and collaboration processes throughout the project is also a key to success. This takes time but allows risks to be identified and adaptations to be implemented collectively. The ‘Timeline’ tool can help.

Participatory methods can be used at any stage of a multi-actor (MA) project from the birth of a project idea until the final dissemination and embedding of project results. LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu/) created an interactive guide to support the work of project managers by helping identify the main 'human' challenges of MA projects and the participatory methods/tools that can be used to address these issues.



This Practice Abstract relates specifically to the ‘design & development’ stage of a project, including the very beginning of collaboration.



Challenges may first be encountered during the identification of needs or challenges. The definition of a project ‘idea’ is essential at this stage – the more it is developed with the partners engaged, the more robust the project will be. Creativity is welcome at this early stage. A brainstorming tool can be used to collectively identify the idea. Also important is the construction of the partnership since the group will need the necessary set of skills for solving the problem. At the same time, the benefits for all partners need to be obvious otherwise motivation will be an issue. Partners in a MA project can come from the same networks, however, exploring new networks helps to include new skills and approaches. A stakeholder mapping tool can help to identify future partners.



Once the group has validated the idea, participatory tools such as ‘Speed Boat’ can help to develop the work programme collectively; identify risks, and; involve everyone in facilitating ownership. MA projects need to be clear for all members to avoid misunderstandings and potential tensions. Getting to know each other at the early stage of the collaboration is key. Tools such as ‘Icebreaker’ can help with this.

Environmental protection and food waste are core topics for sustainable food production systems. The EU LIFE and INTERREG programmes both support projects where a multi-actor approach is not officially required, but many non-agricultural stakeholders cooperate with farmers to change farming practices to protect the environment or reduce food waste.



We identified 8 key elements that foster such multi-actor sustainable cross-sectoral cooperation in the LIFE and INTERREG programmes: 1) orientation towards finding solutions for farmers rather than developing new knowledge; 2) support of ‘smooth innovation’ that doesn’t require radical changes on the farm but fits innovation into existing activities contributing to improved economic and environmental efficiency; 3) encouragement of firms to become partners (where they are actively seeking new solutions to create sustainable market rewards); 4) requiring co-funding which enables buy-in by farmers and other firms; 5) allowing the acquisition of tangible assets during the project implementation (e.g. machinery, animals) thereby motivating partner engagement; 6) creating a flexible structure of cooperation facilitating farmers’ involvement; 7) bilaterally sharing resources and findings within the group (e.g. between coordinator and farmer) thereby creating ‘innovation duos’, and; 8) building on previous cooperation to take advantage of established trust-based relationships, mutual recognition and well known competences.



Our H2020 LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) case studies found that such cooperation between actors from different sectors leads to environmental protection oriented agricultural innovations and to sustainable diversification.

Many low-income countries do not fully exploit their agricultural innovation potential due to actors’ limited capacity to seize opportunities and take joint action, coupled with the lack of support mechanisms and governance structures to foster an enabling environment.



The Tropical Agriculture Platform (TAP) was initiated by the G20 to promote agricultural innovation in the tropics and has grown into a coalition of 40+ partners ranging from research institutes to farmer organisations. Recognising the need for capacity development (CD) in Agricultural Innovation Systems, the TAP developed the Common Framework (CF). The TAP CF offers valuable insights into alternative mechanisms to speed up innovation in agriculture and related value chains.



The TAP CF focuses on two levels: ‘niche’ innovation partnerships (small groups / networks with a specific innovation agenda), where the experimentation and learning happens, and the wider ‘system’ level of which the niches are part. At these levels, the CD process takes place in three dimensions; bringing together individuals and organisations to co-create knowledge and enhance the enabling environment to strengthen the system-wide capacity to innovate. Moreover, the TAP CF focusses on building innovation partnerships’ ability to function more effectively via their ‘functional capacity’ to navigate complexity; to collaborate; to reflect and learn, and; to engage in political processes.



In the European Union, the capacity is built of certain AKIS actors, however, an overarching framework for CD does not exist. Such a framework for CD at different levels would enhance actors’ and organisations’ capacity to effectively engage in and support innovation processes across the EU.

Many EIP-AGRI Operational Groups (OGs) concentrate their activities on topics that are innovative and relevant from an agricultural production or agri-technological perspective. Consequently, they tend to focus primarily on how the solutions they develop (e.g. the introduction of a new crop or variety into rotation) may yield economic profits and other agronomic benefits such as improved soil quality. This represents a farmer’s typical professional focus on agricultural productivity. However, we have observed in the LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) that some innovative solutions developed by OGs may generate other benefits (social, ecological etc.) that do not appear on the farm directly, but may only be commercially exploited in other social / market areas (e.g. tourism). From the farming perspective, some OGs tend to neglect the definition of objectives and action plans related to this broader commercialisation scope.



At the same time, the EU funding scheme used to finance OGs (the EAFRD-funded ‘Cooperation’ measure) in principle encourages OGs to adopt this wider strategic view i.e. to reflect on further market opportunities for their innovative solutions. Under this measure, OGs may not only apply for funding for the innovative process itself, but also for the commercialisation of their innovative solution. In order to inspire OGs further to adopt such a broader market perspective, it may be useful to offer them the services of a network of specialist business advisors that support them in the area of business development. It may also be useful to help them extend their network of partners at the EU level through brokerage meetings. These may be clustered around certain geographic areas or sectors (e.g. meat, dairy etc.).

‘Innovation support services’ (ISS) may be funded using public money (e.g. EU rural development measures for ‘cooperation’ and EIP-AGRI Operational Groups) to support and facilitate multi-actor collaboration aimed at fostering innovative solutions for agricultural productivity and sustainability. Through public tender, organisations may be appointed to provide a coherent programme of ISS, such as brokering connections, network building, assisting with proposal writing, facilitating project activities, communicating with and motivating actors, administration and disseminating results. Experience from the H2020 LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) indicates that an effective ISS should incorporate:



Flexibility – collaboration processes must give actors the space to explore ideas, discover the root of their problems, make mistakes and realise creative solutions to be truly innovative.



Facilitation – innovation projects involving multiple actors from farming, research, business, civil society, government, etc. need a guiding hand to keep the process moving forward. A dedicated facilitator can convene actors, foster mutual engagement, ask the right questions and help turn their ideas into proposals for continuing collaboration.



Cross-sectoral – solutions derived in a silo may not take factors into account that act as barriers or challenges to their implementation. Innovation processes should include all relevant stakeholders necessary to develop integrated solutions e.g. supply chain actors, local councils, tourism boards, etc.



Engaging – ISS should promote the opportunities for and benefits of interactive innovation with the aim to engage new actors who never would have collaborated otherwise.

In LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu), multiple case studies show how ‘innovation support services’ (ISS) assist farmers in applying for innovation funding. In an example from Belgium the Innovation Support Centre (ISP) (https://www.innovatiesteunpunt.be/) of a farmers organisation not only supports farmers in writing proposals but also collaborates with the Flemish government funding body to organise joint outreach events on funding opportunities to farmers etc. The ISP have played the role of ISS in this context for many years and the following SWOT analysis breaks down its results.



Strengths: Strong connections with both farmers and funding body; On-the-ground knowledge of problems faced and innovation in agriculture; Extensive network of farmers, advisors, researchers and technology providers; Experience in writing project proposals and applying for funding.



Weaknesses: Limited resources (staff, time); Limited understanding of all possible innovations for which farmers apply.



Opportunities: Funding body receives higher-quality applications and is therefore willing to 1) share information and provide feedback and 2) work with ISP on improving the funding mechanism; Increasing trust in ISP leads to more contacts ‘in the field’.



Threats: Collaboration between the funding body and ISP is not formally structured but depends on the goodwill and commitment of individuals involved; No financial compensation for ISP service.



Thus, it is crucial for ISS to establish strong relationships with both the funding body and end users, receive adequate financial resources to provide support and have comprehensive knowledge of innovation opportunities and networks to draw upon in fostering stakeholder collaboration.

Keeping a group on track and focused on agreed activity requires support which can provided by an individual or organisation to the group. This role carries out a range of functions either on behalf of - or as part of - the group either through a publicly funded / tendered service or engagement with a private business. Their involvement includes a structured set of support services encompassing two key functions:



Achieving effective collaboration and agreed outputs - this role can either be fulfilled within the collaboration or appointed to work with the group. The key functions include faciliation, mediation and monitoring as well as conflict resolution. If training and capacity building is required within the group this too is identified and sourced on behalf of the group by this role. Regular contact with the funder is funnelled through this role to monitor and evaluate progress and also assist or lead on the crucial dissemination phase of the project.



Maximising the impact of the innovation - this role can provide valuable access to experts beyond the main cohort of the group through encouraging the identification of other actors to engage or opening up access to their networks. They can make approaches on behalf of the group as and when question emerge as planned or unexpectedly. The administrative burden of building and maintaining momentum for the activity must not be underestimated from organising meetings, reminding about key tasks to complete, collecting information and data plus routine monitoring for funders etc.



The effective provision of these functions to the group helps improve the quality, speed and experience of interactive innovation and has proved particularly valuable in the establishment and project design phase.

Innovation processes in agriculture and forestry are supported by various social arrangements and actors that help innovators solve problems they are encountering. This support may include brokering activities at the beginning of the project (e.g. help with network building, proposal writing) or facilitation during the project (e.g. help with internal communication, administration, dissemination). In research, policy and practice these support activities and/or the actors that provide them are often referred to as ‘innovation support services’ (ISS).



However, in official contexts, the term often acquires a more specific meaning. The 2014 Rural Development Regulation for instance allows EU Member States to use part of their allotted EAFRD budget to finance some innovation support actions (e.g. operation of the national rural network or assistance to EIP-AGRI Operational Groups). The organisations appointed to deliver (a structured set of) such support activities are often formally called ‘innovation support services’. They may be subdivisions of a ministry, other public institutes such as Chambers of Agriculture, or private businesses or NGOs (e.g. research centres, private consultancies etc.) that are appointed through public tender.



Users of the term ISS should indicate when they are referring to this narrow definition as opposed to a broader understanding that also captures alternative and informal support provided, e.g. by engaged individuals or personal support networks. Keeping these less formalised support services in view is important for policy actors as well as agricultural innovators on the ground - not least because these ISS may often also be eligible for funding (e.g. under EU, national or regional funding).

Multi-actor co-innovation partnerships involving actors from the same or different geographical areas face several risks that must be identified and managed to minimise their impact. Research by the LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) indicates that many of these risks are social. They include lack of commitment of the actors in the partnership, problems of coordination, cultural differences between actors and opposition of society to innovation and change.



Lack of commitment of the actors can occur either because the co-innovation activity does not match their expectations or because of problems with coordination. The coordinator must not only be acquainted with the characteristics of each partner, but also should discuss and agree with them, in appropriate language, the expected outcomes of the activity before it starts. The coordinator must facilitate fluid and frequent communication between all actors in the partnership regardless of their role to maximise knowledge sharing and optimise decision making. Both face-to-face and online communication can be effective. An inclusive approach will ensure that partners feel involved and motivated. But be careful, if they do not see concrete results they may not want to participate in the future.



Differences between actors in cultural and/or working methods demand flexibility in the implementation of the co-innovation activity. Facilitators can support this adaptation. Societal opposition to innovation can be mitigated by dissemination activities that clearly show the benefits of new forms of management (e.g. job creation) and the synergies with their farms. In short, farmers and communities should interact in a process that shapes their actions and improves rural areas.

In the Horizon 2020 LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu), we conducted case studies to learn more about how business networks deal with challenges regarding cooperation. When business actors cooperate in a project (e.g. in a business cluster) it is important to consider that some of them may also be competitors. This may impact the innovative project in multiple ways. In one of our case studies, we identified some practices that seemed particularly helpful in solving this challenge and that can serve as a good example to other consortia that are dealing with similar issues.



1) Project partners of a business cluster are usually both complementary and some also competitors. For that reason, it is important that they share the main objective of the project. For example, members of a wood industry cluster in Norway used a specific method for the alignment of partners in the initial phase of the project – they used a matrix where they scored points on a scale and summed up which principled solutions they believed in the most and wanted to focus on in the project regarding production and professional issues.



2) The management of the project is another area of potential conflict. A good practice from our case study is monthly technical meetings and regular workshops where partners reinforce common goals and challenges through discussion, knowledge exchange, presentations of possible solutions, and feedback to each other as the project develop.



3) Joint agreements on the type of information to be shared within the group are crucial for trust-based cooperation. It is important to put the actors themselves in the lead of such decisions.



Practices such as these can help to build trust among partners even if they are simultaneously competitors.

Engaging actors in innovation projects requires effective outreach, promotion, marketing and dissemination of activities during the lifetime of the collaboration, plus for its legacy. In case studies undertaken by the Horizon 2020 LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) it was found that a wide range of support is available for marketing and dissemination which can be accessed by innovation projects. Use of different types of support highlights the value of properly resourcing marketing and dissemination in order to maximise the potential for recruitment, collaboration, knowledge transfer and wider stakeholder engagement. The LIAISON case studies found funding or other resources available for effective marketing and dissemination within an Innovation Support Service (ISS), strategic partnership and within the membership of a producer group.



Groups benefit from having access to a strategic, planned dedicated marketing strategy with allocated resource to promote the programme, ongoing activity and dissemination outputs aligned with or delivered through the ISS. This is especially the case when the actors do not possess skills or experience in this area.



Careful consideration should also be given to ensure information and knowledge transfer is appropriately pitched and utilises the most effective methods to reach key target audiences for engagement. This helps to inform (what is the process or group trying to achieve), innovate (what has the group learnt) and inspire (adoption of ideas). This is particularly important for knowledge transfer beyond the group.



A clear overall recommendation is that the potential impact of interactive innovation projects can be enhanced by providing resources for dissemination to an ISS.

In various multi-actor projects the role of the coordinator is (not surprisingly) found to be extremely important factor of success. However, in one case studied by the H2020 LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) an additional success factor was observed – namely that the complementary technical and management skills of a ‘dynamic duo’ of co-ordinators can contribute greatly to the impact of the multi-actor project they lead.



In this specific case, one co-ordinator has skills in agricultural extension / advice and the other co-ordinator has market gardening and machinery skills. Once they were connected by their common interest and values the co-ordinators found that their complementarity technical skills and experience expanded their individual fields of knowledge, their networks (and therefore the diversity of stakeholders they knew) and their understanding of the agricultural context they were working in. Since their personalities and soft management skills were also complementary they found themselves well placed to work together to effectively lead a multi-actor project.



However, building on the strong complementarity of two project co-ordinators also brings challenges which should be anticipated and addressed as early as possible. The interaction between a dynamic duo (especially where strong personalities are involved) can be very ‘dominanting’ for other participants in the project. Great care must therefore be taken to balance dynamic leadership with the co-creation process, especially the involvement of all partners and participants in decision-making. If all participants are to feel involved and motivated then decision-making should be open and not “imposed” in a top-down style, however well-intended.

Dynamic leadership in interactive innovation projects can be the key to actually creating innovation. To show what a dynamic individual can achieve, the LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) looked at i) a large complex project which aims to shape wine producing practices in the Alentejo region of Portugal, and; ii) a small independent family farm that focuses on ethical and sustainable farming practices.



Both projects feature a ‘champion/leader’ who could: 1) identify the institutional supports for success; 2) generate trust and boost motivation by including key stakeholders in the decision making of the projects and in the development of novel product and practices; 3) expand and diversify the network of participants; 4) disseminate and embed the innovation across a variety of outlets, and; 5) advance the perspective beyond ‘project-term’ funding to longer term programmes.



These champions had close working relationships with the organization’s management so could influence decision-making processes and had autonomy to: establish contacts and alliances with partners, stakeholders and external actors; to coordinate the project, and; to organize knowledge and information sharing.



The champion could not be easily replaced because they are change agents, rather than managers, so their loss before the project had entered a routine could have led to a loss of enthusiasm and undermined the success of the project.



The ability of a person to be a champion comes from their soft skills – namely, their charisma and the form in which they engage and inspire others, rather than the content of what they communicate. The characteristics that convey these skills are like an elephant: hard to describe but you’ll know them when you see them.

Multi-actor projects aim to develop innovative solutions through cooperative learning processes in which a variety of actors share their knowledge and perspectives. ‘Mutual listening’ is important for shaping this cooperative learning and encouraging the different players to share their views of the problem to be addressed and the goals to be achieved. If necessary these can be adjusted into a new, shared ‘frame of action’ which leads to a common sense of problem ownership and contributes to increasing actors' commitment. Unfortunately this process can be hampered when a great diversity of knowledge, approaches, needs, interests and goals exists.



Neutral expert facilitation (by an external/internal actor who does not have a direct interest in the specific innovation project) can therefore be key for allowing actors to discuss, negotiate and share meanings – and to direct them towards a collective thinking that encourages the re-shaping of individual ideas and reciprocal understanding, overcoming cultural differences and mutual distrust.



From an operational point of view, the adoption of a consensus-based decision-making model and peer-to-peer approach within project activities, can be helpful to allow actors to learn to listen to each other, discuss and find a common view, thereby feeling equally engaged within the innovation process.



Actors' willingness to listen and learn from each others, questioning their own ideas and interests and proving to the partners they have the courage to take risks for the project increase mutual trust and help create a learning environment where individual knowledge evolve in an active building of collective knowledge needed to co-create effective innovations

Both for those who draft funding programmes for agriculture and rural development and for potential beneficiaries it may be relevant to consider the economic interests beneficiaries may have in a funded project.



Some beneficiaries have a strong interest in securing (the continuation of) funding but not in the actual project output. For example, a researcher employed on a project where funding is not dependent on the economic success of the project output.



Others may have a high interest in the project output but are not highly dependent on securing funding because they rely on other sources of income or have other means available to cover project-related expenditures. This may be the case for farmers (e.g. in EIP-AGRI Operational Groups) for whom the project funding is not the main source of income but is only used to remunerate specific expenditures. By contrast, they may have a high interest in the expected output if this promises to increase their profitability and thus income.



In general, beneficiaries’ interest in the project output is likely higher if the output is immediately economically exploitable (e.g. a new tool) than if it is not (e.g. certain types of research data). Such interests may influence a consortium in multiple ways. For instance, trust may be low among actors who simultaneously compete on a tough market. They may also have little incentive to disseminate project results out of fear of giving away economic advantages.



This is important to consider early in the programming of funding schemes and the planning of individual projects. In particular, consortium agreements should contain provisions on how to prevent or solve potential conflicts of interests between funding officials and beneficiaries or among beneficiaries.

It is widely acknowledged and understood that trust is both 1) a critical part of the “social glue” that holds any form of partnership together and 2) can have an important influence upon the way that decisions are made within a partnership. Whilst studying a number of partnerships formed specifically for the co-creation of innovative “new ideas that work in practice” we observed at least four distinct types of trust between project partners: i) basic mutual trust where all partners have confidence in each other to behave in accordance with usual social/business norms; ii) goodwill trust where partners share the same values and implicitly trust each other’s good intentions; iii) collegial trust where partners feel connected as professionals and believe they can depend/rely upon each other’s professional integrity, and; iv) trust in experts where individual partners are acknowledged, respected and consulted specifically for their knowledge, experience, competence or good judgement.



An understanding of these different types of trust can help greatly with the formation and management of partnerships for innovation. With skilled facilitation and the use of appropriate tools the different types of trust can all be encouraged/enhanced in order to contribute to the overall effectiveness of the partnership. For example, the establishment of clear and simple ‘ground rules’ for open and transparent communication between partners is essential for building trust. Well-constructed peer-to-peer knowledge exchange and mentoring also reinforces all forms of trust. Using an established methodology to perform a regular ‘partnership health check’ can quickly spot problems with emerging mistrust between partners before it manifests as a problem.

Co-creation of agricultural innovations can be hindered by gaps in knowledge and skills within the farming or forestry sector. The involvement of external stakeholders with no prior experience in farming or forestry, but with knowledge and expertise around a certain topic, can be crucial for the success of a project. These newcomers can be very diverse, including commercial firms, facilitators, researchers, educators, coordinators, writers, chefs, TV presenters, civil society or simply younger generations.



When ‘outsiders’ enter the agro or forestry sector they often bring new knowledge, skills, techniques, networks, financial capital, labour capacity and gender diversity. The benefits from their participation include introducing new perspectives and directions for entrepreneurship, knowledge co-creation or the adaptation of traditional knowledge and skills. They can offer evaluation, data analysis, dissemination, and social sensitization to the problems of the sector, as well as recognition and affirmation which might be crucial, especially for fledgling initiatives.



Non-farming experiences often lead to the discovery of new opportunities that benefit the existing farming communities rather than taking business and markets away from them. Still, new entrants are sometimes met with scepticism and resentment. Although they can be the initiators of cross-sectoral collaborations, LIAISON cases (https://liaison2020.eu) reveal that ultimately it is up to the farming communities to let newcomers in and their involvement is dependent on how permeable the boundaries of the ‘insider’ group are. Thus, it can be beneficial for an innovating farming or forestry community to reflect on how open or closed they are to newcomers.

Various case studies in LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu) show the importance of good communication and understanding in interactive innovation projects. This was a particular challenge for an Interreg France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen project where a core group of dairy farmers, advisers and researchers met frequently to discuss and exchange experiences on practical problems. Because they came from different regions and not everyone spoke each other's language, the language was an important point of attention during meetings. Participation in the conversation took a lot of energy and some people had trouble expressing themselves. This was especially true for the farmers, who are not so used to working in a multilingual context. Nevertheless, it is precisely this transregional context, this "looking over the wall", that provides added value for interactive innovation processes.



There were several aspects that ensured that the interaction went well in the project. First, the consortium had put a lot of effort into creating an open and friendly atmosphere in the group, which created mutual trust and everyone got the feeling that they were heard in the discussions. In terms of practical solutions, the consortium had succeeded in meeting the language issue to a large extent by providing sufficient breaks during meetings and by making summaries of what was said, using simple words and phrases. This allowed participants to keep up with what was said and therefore to contribute themselves. Their experience can also be useful for other multilingual consortia. Paying attention to the language aspect, building trust and giving everyone a chance to be heard contributes to involving all actors and thus increases the potential of interactive innovation.

From our case study analysis in the H2020 LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) it is evident that defining a vision based on shared values is an important step for increasing the likelihood of the success and long-term sustainability of interactive innovation projects.



What can then be achieved through shared values? 1) Sharing values provides a common perspective and goal for partners. Shared values can act as a framework underpinning common objectives, actions and activities; 2) Shared values enhance internal relationships by fostering trust and driving behaviours, routines and preferences; 3) Farmers are more likely to take the risk of adapting their practices to align better with shared values; 4) Mutual trust based on shared values helps to keep cooperation alive; 5) Shared values linked to social and economic solidarity can be especially important and can underpin / facilitate dissemination to other groups / regions where the same values prevail, and; 6) Ultimately, shared values may enhance sustainability actions and participation.



How are shared values created? A first set of values is usually established when defining the vision of the project or initiative at the very outset. Sharing these initial values makes the execution of projects simpler, faster and more consistent. In some cases, it may not be a requirement to have shared values from the outset, but it develops / emerges as an expectation of the partners. Shared values may arise during a project via active listening of stakeholders, cooperating and sharing knowledge. However, unless consensus is built some tensions may occur.



In conclusion, shared values trigger mutual trust and foster cooperation, whilst cooperation also fosters the creation of shared values.

Interdisciplinary cooperation faces challenges which often come from difficulties in finding mutual understanding. Sources of misunderstandings include (but not only) the language used in the disciplines; differences in ways of working, and; perceived hierarchies which can be based on expertise or personality. In LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu) we observed strategies to enhance interdisciplinary cooperation:



Establish common goals - it is the facilitator’s responsibility to enable agreement on a common goal. Tacit agreement cannot be assumed. It must be explicit. In one project, farmers noticed discord so called for a whole-project workshop in which the problem was solved with a participatory mind mapping exercise.



Create a communication platform - people from different backgrounds can have different ways of communicating and often use different vocabularies. This can lead to misunderstandings, but can be prevented with an agreed upon and established platform for open and free communication. This could be a commercial web-based tool or even a Whatsapp group.



Be inclusive - every participant has an equal right to be heard but some people withdraw because they are not used to working in an academic setting. Care should be taken to include the voices of those who might be uncomfortable. Facilitators should consult on choosing methods and even locations (e.g. on a farm) for participatory activities, rather than be the ‘expert’ and tell people what to do.



Encourage people to engage - the facilitator should encourage people to engage by providing an appropriate space; based on interest and respect. Listening to the different voices helps to do that. It can be as simple as accompanying a participant for a day to see what they actually do.

The active commitment of stakeholders in the network of an agricultural innovation project is a key factor for continuity, fostering innovation and deepening the dissemination of results. One of the key roles that a project manager performs is to monitor the network and to identify the most active and critical stakeholders, and those who are not. Carrying out this exercise in successive stages along the project shows how the initial network evolves. The LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) has studied the evolution of the network in different innovation projects. Some factors have been identified that can contribute positively if they are considered in the design phase or even when re-structuring ongoing projects.



Firstly, networks have more possibilities to expand their results if the initial design relies on a central stakeholder that has a reputation with an established structure of relationships and is independent of the project's resources.



The business orientation of that stakeholder is the second factor to consider. This stakeholder acts by aligning the whole process towards applicable results and gets involved in the dissemination and recruitment of new actors and promotes the continuity of the work. On the contrary, if that stakeholder has a strong project orientation, the focus is on the expected results and the effort slows down when the funding ends.



Finally, as third factor, it is likely that secondary stakeholders with the capacity to promote, finance, and disseminate can join actively when projects are focused on mature sectors. For this reason, the participation of the above type of stakeholders is even more important when we are dealing with pioneering activities and/or scenarios with low density of stakeholders.

Most of the innovation projects and initiatives studied by the Horizon 2020 project LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu) had their origins / roots in some form of existing network(s) and this was an important factor facilitating cooperation between the involved actors. These existing networks are commonly organized around either sectoral specialization related to the projects’ topics or a geographical area of relevance in relation to the topic tackled.



Within these networks some external experts (such as from research institutes, farmer organisations or market players) bring skills and/or perspectives that enables the partners to connect and actively engage in the co-creation process. These stakeholders act as ‘connectors’ and crucial ‘facilitators’ of the co-creation process and provide new ideas or specific knowledge and expertise. They can also bring significant added value to a project through their connection with existing networks.



Potential innovation projects and initiatives can therefore benefit greatly from identifying, targeting and engaging with these ‘connectors’ / ‘facilitators’ and there are many examples of their presence / engagement turning an existing passive network into an active partnership enhancing innovation activities by making use of all the stakeholders’ skills, experiences and knowledge. Equally there are also examples of very limited co-creation processes due the lack of such ‘connectors’ / ‘facilitators’ and no external driving force existing to encourage cooperation and interactive innovation.

There is a commonly held view that multi-actor innovation partnerships in agriculture, forestry and related sectors must include farmers/foresters, advisors and researchers. The Horizon 2020 project LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu) has studied a diverse range of 200 co-innovation partnerships from across Europe and has concluded that there are in fact several ways in which complementary forms of knowledge can contribute to co-innovation. These include:



1) Value chain and farmer-farmer partnerships - farmer-advisor-researcher cooperation is important, but there are many examples of co-innovation partnerships between (mainly private sector) actors in the value chain, including input suppliers and food processors, as well as farmers. There is evidence that smaller, flexible companies try new ideas at a lower cost and are more willing to challenge conventions. Also, since every individual has their own knowledge, skills and experience, knowledge sharing between farmers and foresters themselves, either through formal partnerships or informal networks, can also foster co-innovation.



2) Dialogue with stakeholders beyond the partnership - it is not always necessary for all knowledge to be included in the ‘core partnership’. The partnership should communicate regularly with a ‘wider periphery’ of diverse stakeholders that may have knowledge and expertise the partners lack.



Multi-actor partnerships must ensure they have access to the resources they need (such as knowledge, skills, know-how, equipment, infrastructure and finance). They should also optimise the sharing of those resources and adopt a transdisciplinary way of working during the co-innovation process. These are the keys to success.

An innovation is an idea, a novel product or process, or an existing product produced in different ways and/or with new attributes, that proves successful in practice. If the idea is not put into practice, it remains an invention and not an innovation. ‘Market formation’ and consolidation are essential parts of the co-innovation process. Inadequate attention to market formation and consolidation are therefore major drivers of poor innovation standards.



Market formation and consolidation can be addressed by inclusion of the necessary value chain actors in the ‘core partnership’. Research by the Horizon 2020 LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) has identified several partnerships that have achieved success by including non-academic / industry / commercial actors and networks, such as SMEs engaged in processing, distributing, retail and agro-tourism; market research companies; technical consultancies, and; catering enterprises.



Also essential is dialogue with organisations and individuals that are not part of the core partnership but still take part in the co-production of innovation. They provide ‘complementary forms of knowledge’ that the core partnership lacks. Practitioners and other value chain actors are strongly represented here and act as a bridge between the core partnership and the ‘real world’.



Market formation or consolidation may also be assisted by coordinators or partners from other projects / networks, as well as policy makers, members of academia, scientists and advisors. They can help transform the project outputs into innovation schemes and accelerator programmes (external to the project) or to create a spin-off company to scale up the product or idea.

When a diverse group of professionals starts to work together in a participatory innovation process, it is important to create favourable conditions from the beginning for mutual understanding. Organising effective communication in which all players know about each other’s opinions, preferences and priorities is therefore essential.



From the LIAISON project case studies (https://liaison2020.eu) it is observed that the following actions can help a group with diverse partners to communicate effectively during the process of knowledge co-creation: 1) Being communicative (having the ability to exchange thoughts and ideas) and using an understandable language that is relevant and appropriate to the specific situation and context are crucial for facilitating the entire participatory process; 2) Creating a continual open and honest dialogue to share information, perceptions and experiences; 3) Providing clear explanations (technical and ambiguous terms should be handled with caution), checking for understanding (clarify uncertainties, asking if further explanation is needed), and being an active listener (paying close attention to what others say) also helps to reinforce the critical links between / among project actors that are vital to avoid misunderstandings, and; 4) Promoting a collective and ongoing discussion (spaces for coordination), keeping communication lines open (being reachable), and respecting different opinions contribute to maintain strong and lasting relationships with diverse players.



What is useful to keep in mind is that an effective communication requires time to be practiced by all members of a group and must be patient to gradually improve their empathy of others’ views and develop a common language.

Is your partnership tackling a societal and complex problem with many root causes and no simple solution? For example, topics related to public goods such as water availability, energy saving, or larger environmental challenges. Farmers tend to procrastinate in addressing these issues as they consume extra time and might cost money. Some LIAISON case studies (https://liaison2020.eu) dealt with such issues and highlighted the following lessons:



How you frame the “problem” matters! Try to frame the problem as an ‘opportunity’ and think on how farmers can be a part of the solution.



Think about the farmers’ perspectives! Think of the values and interests of the farmers: What makes it interesting for them to engage? What are their potential benefits or barriers to participate and how to address them?



Build a sense of “ownership”! Involving relevant individuals or representative organisations, such as farmers’ associations or irrigation communities appropriately, helps to create ‘trust’ and build a sense of ‘ownership’. This way, actions can be co-developed, supporting a feeling of shared responsibility.



Connect concrete actions to complex problems! Try to make overlooked impacts of farmers’ daily activities visible. How can you make related societal and complex challenges tangible? Try to generate encouraging and specific solutions together such as a digitalised and intelligent irrigation system contributing to preserving water resources (while saving costs).



Having public exposure helps! When farmers’ peers share practical and inspiring solutions, you convey the message that “they tackled difficult issues, so you can do it too”! Linking these examples to existing policy initiatives can also increase farmers’ recognition.

Project coordinators often ask how to take account of farmers’ views, needs and expectations - including when a project idea is already well developed prior to its implementation? Alternatively, what should be done when there is only a vague idea of a project? Here are some recommendations derived from the LIAISON project case studies:



How you approach farmers matters! Ask farmers in a simple language about their needs and expectations or discuss possible solutions. It helps to make farmers feel they are part of the solution, identify suitable solutions through knowledge cross-fertilisation, and enhance the impacts. This should be done throughout the process, most importantly at the proposal development stage, while finding compromises among the involved actors.



Involve key actors to liaise with farmers! The involvement of trusted individuals or organisations such as relevant farmers’ associations helps to build a successful relation with farmers. These actors can serve to connect with farmers to identify their needs and expectations. They can also help in communicating the project in an easily understandable manner, enabling farmers to express themselves.



Flexibility is a key point! Try to allow some flexibility on how you will implement the project. This way, you may adapt the objectives in order to better meet farmer’s needs and expectations. In turn, it can increase the practical relevance of the project. If existing objectives cannot be revised, or insufficiently, think of an additional added value for farmers! For instance, a specific expert could be involved to discuss with farmers on a technical topic of direct interest to them and/or propose tailored or other solutions more relevant to their own farms, where applicable.

Innovation depends on knowledge sharing all along the project, from developing the idea to application of an invention. Knowledge sharing includes continuous dialogue with stakeholders outside the partnership. It complements simple dissemination (via, for example, conferences or workshops). Many H2020 projects reviewed by LIAISON (https://liaison2020.eu) have set up structures to foster dialogue, tailoring their approaches to the needs of different stakeholders to maximise impact.



LIAISON, for example, shares knowledge with EU and national level policy makers via the SCAR Strategic Working Group on Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (https://scar-europe.org/index.php/akis-mission-and-aims). It has set up multinational, multidisciplinary groups of around 15 experts in each of four macro-regions, ‘Atlantic-North Sea’, ‘Danube-Balkan’, ‘Nordic-Baltic’ and ‘Mediterranean’, as forums for dialogue with local stakeholders. Fifteen ‘Rural Innovation Ambassadors’ from inspirational innovation partnerships across Europe are sharing their practical experiences with LIAISON.



Regular discussions are held between the LIAISON team and other multi-actor project consortia (especially, but not only, H2020). Dialogue with academics occurs through participation in workshops and conferences, as well as publication of the LIAISON research results in academic journals. The LIAISON website invites feedback from all stakeholders including farmers, foresters and the general public. Finally, through teaching activities, the LIAISON team engages in dialogue with the stakeholders of tomorrow.



Effective dialogue should embrace many different types of stakeholder to ensure that all their needs are met.

Multi-actor interactive innovation processes are enhanced by trust and good internal dynamics amongst consortia members and this is commonly facilitated through the development of informal relationships. This is evident in many H2020 projects where good informal relationships translate into well-functioning communication amongst the international partners. Ease of communication is commonly attributed to partners having ample opportunities to become acquainted on a personal level during project meetings / events that involve the whole consortium. Where appropriate / possible this can clearly be enhanced by more frequent face-to-face meetings. According to project participants, the maintenance of informal relationships via more frequent face-to-face interactions has a) made their electronic interactions easier (e.g. contacting partners and sharing opinions), and; b) also facilitated knowledge exchange amongst members from diverse disciplines and encouraged consortium members to develop spin-off projects together.



In addition to project meetings, integrating more frequent and varying types of consortium-wide face-to-face events that develop informal ties amongst consortia members may enhance the potential for interactive innovation.



Whilst more frequent face-to-face meetings provide an ideal opportunity for members to facilitate informal relationships, their organisation in the context of large international projects may present challenges, such as balancing multiple schedules, time commitment required for travel and/or budgetary restrictions. However, making explicit commitment to and provisions for more frequent meetings at project planning phase can significantly mitigate these challenges.

The composition of balanced multi-actor project consortia and the development of a proposal for EU level funding is an intensive effort that requires significant commitment from a coordinating institution. Since the application process is highly competitive, potential coordinators without the backing of larger institutions might lack the capacity to develop a proposal. The LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) identified two national-level seed money grants that supported the preparation of successful H2020 applications by covering personnel and other costs.



The German Ministry for Education and Research offers a national grant scheme for universities of applied sciences. The aim of this measure is to offer specific support to the type of universities that rarely engaged in the EU research framework programmes. The scheme offers support for organisations that coordinate (up to €40,000) or join a proposal development (up to €25,000). In Ireland, the Enterprise Ireland Horizon 2020 Coordinator Support grant also provides academic and research institutions with a possibility to draw on a support grant (up to €12,500) with the overall aim to increase the participation of Irish companies and academic institutions in EU level research projects. This support covers associated costs and enables coordinators to focus on the development of proposal.



These seed money grants can contribute significantly to the success of the proposal for funding. Expanding this support to other national contexts could potentially increase the capacity of coordinators in smaller under-represented institutions to acquire EU funding, engage in European research and innovation networks and build capacities within less experienced organisations.

The statement of author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie that “Culture does not make people. People make culture. If it is true that the full humanity of women is not our culture, then we can and must make it our culture” is also very applicable to EU research projects. This is not to say that gender should be at the centre of every project, but rather that all participants should understand that inequalities, or power imbalances based on gender discrimination, are almost certain to exist in every project.



Appointing a project ‘gender delegate’ can help to ensure that participants in a project are aware and share ownership of the concepts of inclusion and equality. Broad and explicit ownership means that a) it is less likely that incidences of discrimination will occur, and b) if it does occur it is easier to detect. Gender auditing is also a useful tool for a gender delegate to identify and address any latent issues.



Discrimination can also occur in the content of a project and a gender delegate should remind participants to ensure that the impacts of projects are not discriminatory. Although the role of gender delegate explicitly refers to discrimination against women, discrimination is relevant to any other potentially marginalised participants, regardless of the cause of discrimination. These causes may be intersectional and can include, but are not limited to, age, race, seniority, language ability and eloquence.



From the LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) we have learned that all partners and other stakeholders in project groups must have equal opportunity of participation and inclusion and can be easily integrated in the design of all activities, either as stand-alone tasks or as an institution within the project’s management structure.

The characteristics of agriculture and forestry vary greatly across Europe. It is impossible to mirror this complexity one-on-one in any research and innovation framework. Instead, a pragmatic concept is needed to ensure that the investigation covers geographical diversity without neglecting their distinct differences.



The Horizon 2020 funded LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) studies from May 2018 to April 2022 the challenges and best practices of innovative projects and initiatives in agriculture and forestry. From the beginning, we aimed to involve multiple types of actors and stakeholders from across Europe. Our approach distinguishes between four ‘macro-regional hubs’ in order to account for Europe’s social, political and economic diversity of agricultural innovation contexts: Danube/Balkan States, Mediterranean, Atlantic-North Sea and Scandinavia/Baltic States. The underlying assumption was that the local contexts for agricultural innovation within these macro-regions resemble each other more than between macro-regions.



This distinction not only informed our research activities, it is also central to our stakeholder engagement. We established four macro-regional groups of experts that represent their countries as well as outstanding sectors or regional perspectives, e.g. public officials, advisors, innovators and farming and forestry SMEs. A stakeholder mapping at the beginning of the project ensured an appropriate mix of stakeholders for each hub. The macro-regional stakeholder groups provide feedback to output materials and ensure the ground-truthing of policy and practice recommendations. In addition, they are multipliers supporting the dissemination within the macro-regional hubs.

The LIAISON project investigated the design and implementation of interactive innovation initiatives on the basis of 32 case studies. The analytical framework streamlined the data collection and guides the analysis and comparison in order to draw conclusions and recommendations for policy, administration, innovation support services, professional organisations and a variety of practitioners from the farming, forestry and related sectors. This framework draws upon previous work, i.e. the LIAISON theoretical framework, findings of the ‘light-touch’ reviews and outputs of several workshops. Also, it is grounded in the “Innovation Systems” literature.



The LIAISON analytical framework consists of five interactions: 1) Interaction with a funding mechanism - we explored how case study actors chose certain types of funding or financing streams and looked at the relation between the case and funding bodies; 2) Interaction within the interactive innovation case - we looked at the way case study actors cooperate and learn from each other; 3) Interaction with stakeholders beyond the formal partnership - we considered how case study actors involved or linked with relevant stakeholders outside of their partnership, such as (non-) governmental organisations, other projects, networks, clusters or other types of stakeholders; 4) Interaction with the context/environment - we studied the influence of policy, territory, society, economy, particular political history or certain social/cultural values and norms on the cooperation and results of the case studies, and; 5) Interaction with societal challenges - together with the case study actors, we reflected on their contribution to societal challenges and whether it feeds back into policy.

In the LIAISON project we aimed to understand how interactive innovation processes work. The core of the project is 30 in-depth European case studies which we selected as follows.



We started with 200 preselected cases identified from several databases of EU-funded projects, plus several national, private or even non-funded initiatives. The cases were reviewed via desk-based research and semi-structured interviews.



The next step was to select 30 insightful cases from of this preselection. We organised a survey and Skype calls with the LIAISON teams to understand their interpretation of these cases and to exclude ineligible cases. We clustered the remaining cases based upon their funding source: 1) EU (co-)funded large multinational projects; 2) EU (co-)funded national projects; 3) Cases that are part of a national / regional policy framework / programme without EU-funding, and; 4) ‘Under the radar’ cases (privately financed or non-funded cases, volunteer initiatives etc).



We continued by setting up a ‘coding system’ in which we identified all cases according to: a) the geographical distribution; b) the type of case (cluster, project, network, initiative); c) the mix of actors; d) the type of innovation; e) the sector, and; f) the potential to learn.



This ‘coding system’ helped us to reach a balanced selection. In a participatory workshop, the LIAISON partners could collectively decide to bring cases in and out the final selection pool. They had to negotiate to reach the shared objective: a balanced yet diverse set of 30 European cases with 2 cases per LIAISON partner to study in-depth.



Finally, a post-selection reflection on the balance of the criteria and on certain ethical issues fine-tuned the definitive selection.

In the LIAISON project 32 multi-actor projects were studied in-depth by 20 case study deputies from different backgrounds and varying levels of social research experience. An intensive process was required to accompany the deputies in their research work.



The process started with a 2 day training for the deputies to create a common understanding of the work ahead. It familiarised them with qualitative research methods, tools and techniques. A research guideline and reporting template were developed to support and streamline the case study outputs.



During the implementation, deputies were accompanied by a monthly meeting in “Communities of Practice” to share experiences, problems and ideas. Once the deputies started to analyse their data, a peer review was organised. Using a specific template on an online platform, deputies discussed their case studies in a simple yet creative way supporting further critical reflection.



After 8 intensive months, extensive case study reports and one page “portraits” were produced. The final step in the case study process was a collective and comparative reflection on their key-findings via online workshops.



The success factors of the LIAISON case study process were: a) creating common understanding of objectives, methods and materials up front, supported by clear and detailed information in different formats: text, ppt, webinars, live/online meetings, practical exercises, cross-reading exercises, MURAL templates; b) intensive and frequent exchanges via peer support and review in small groups created an atmosphere of trust amongst the deputies, and; c) combination of individual and collective moments for reflection while involving other LIAISON partners to think along with the deputies.

Many well-respected organisations from across Europe and beyond take part in international, multi-actor partnerships that are co-funded by the EU’s Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation. Even so, there are numerous gaps in participation. Certain types of organisations and actors from some European regions are under-represented. The LIAISON project (https://liaison2020.eu) has identified measures that could enhance the inclusivity of the programme and increase the diversity of organisations that lead multi-actor partnerships.



Only very experienced organisations, especially universities and research institutes, have the capacity to manage the very large projects funded under Horizon 2020. The multi-actor approach has thus been compromised by an excessive influence of academic leads. One idea is for smaller projects that could be coordinated by non-academic organisations such as companies, business associations, NGOs and farmer/forester organisations.



Inclusivity could also be enhanced by more sensitivity in the choice of topics for which calls for proposals are issued. BioEast, the Central Eastern European Initiative for Knowledge-based Agriculture, Aquaculture and Forestry in the Bioeconomy (https://bioeast.eu), highlights topics that particularly affect Central and Eastern Europe (such the impact of climate change on continental climates and rural social cohesion in transition economies) in the European research and policy agendas. This is a more thoughtful approach than a simple requirement to achieve geographical balance in the partnership, which can lead to actors being recruited solely for that purpose and not meaningfully integrated in the activities.