In the SHERPA MAP Climate-Friendly Village (Czechia), participants discussed the preparation of the Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan 2021+ and its opportunity to address climate change. Municipalities and LAGs are willing to participate in these activities through the CLLD programme.There are still concerns about the willingness and confidence to create a meaningful connection among policy, scientific knowledge and practice in order to deliver effective activities. Based on the experience of this MAP, it was agreed that:1) The scope and impact of CAP do not sufficiently mitigate climate change impacts. Climate change is becoming more and more pronounced, and it is not possible to increase carbon storage, nor to reduce the loss and degradation of soils, and biodiversity and increase water retention by the landscape.2) Land consolidation is a long-term tool that can introduce a rich mosaic of structures into the agricultural landscape and help to improve the water regime of the landscape, increase the number of landscape elements and thus limit the adverse degradation effects, especially water and wind erosion of the soil. The problem is that some municipalities still refuse it.3) Agroforestry systems represent a high potential for the diversification of landscape structures, which are more resistant to climate change and bring significant ecosystem services to the landscape - water, soil and biodiversity.Unfortunately, political decisions take more time than physical phenomena such as climate change. There is a need to increase the area representation of agroforestry systems as an adaptation to climate change to at least 25% of the share of agricultural areas.

Since the 1980s, the territory of the SHERPA MAP Southwest Alentejo, Portugal, welcomed several foreign citizens. The extension of land near the coast, the microclimate, and the existing irrigation system have favoured the establishment of agricultural companies which have found in this territory the ideal requirements to produce quality and high added value, making agriculture, particularly horticulture and small fruit production, one of the main economic activities of the municipality. Southwest Alentejo also attracts migrant labour considering the local workforce is not appropriate to meet the needs of the companies based in the municipality.Unlike most rural areas in Portugal, which have seen a huge loss of population, in Odemira there has been a stabilization of the resident population, mainly due to the flow of migrant citizens who arrive in the territory, essentially through economic migration, as labour for the large agricultural companies dedicated to the production of vegetables and red fruits, which makes Odemira an exporting production pole in Europe. However, as this migration is concentrated in some areas of the territory, there is a high asymmetry within the municipality. The agricultural compatibility of the companies implemented in the Mira Irrigation Perimeter and, simultaneously, in the Southwest Alentejo and Vicentine Coast Natural Park poses challenges at environmental, housing and social levels. This framework makes the Southwest Alentejo region an excellent territory to analyse issues related to the social dimension of rural areas and thus contribute to influencing future EU policies.

The SHERPA MAP Argeș was set-up at the level of Argeș county (Romania) as a local support group for sustainable and resilient rural development.To achieve this, the MAP Arges advocated the horizontal and vertical integration level of local actors in the agri-food supply chain.The meetings organized with the MAP members highlighted the importance of increasing the connections between research, policy and production/ farmers as an essential condition for solving agricultural producers’ specific problems, but also for validating the research’ results.From their perspective, constructive dialogue with representatives of different policy, research and agricultural organisations, active cooperation with other SHERPA MAPs in Romania, and open debates regarding the MAP’s Position Paper have the potential to influence policy.Based on several discussions, MAP Arges members outlined the following recommendations to support the main channels that can influence policy and research:• Extend the MAP network at local and regional platform level through a sustained involvement of Local Action Groups, that can empower people to actively participate in the local governance process, including the elaboration of studies that can support a commune local strategy;• Include, in the local governance process, universities, research centres and institutes from the area;• Promote constant and active dialogue between representatives of different institutions participating in the local governance process;• Identify local, national and European funding scheme to support the activities of MAPs, and (hence sustain their influence on policy and research).

Sustainable and resilient value chains were the topics discussed by the SHERPA MAP Hungarian Rural Prosperity in 2022. Science-Society-Policy actors shared their knowledge and experience to formulate policy and research proposals. Officials from sectoral ministries and agricultural advocacy bodies, experts in agricultural policy planning, implementation, and evaluation, and in the operation of information and advisory systems, and the academic sector participated to the MAP meetings.The MAP activities opened new perspectives for both policy and research. They drew attention to the importance of rural and agri-food value chain issues; they created a chance for dialogue between actors with different backgrounds and interest; and provided an opportunity for individual and collective policy and research proposals to be made, on a reciprocal basis. This means that policy actors in the MAP could point out their needs in terms of knowledge and information that science should address for better programme design and implementation. At the same time, researcher members could share their findings with policymakers and translate them into concrete policy recommendations. The society subset was equally empowered and involved in this joint reflection and proposal process.This MAP showed that a sincere dialogue can develop between the actors of the different groups, identifying and focusing on common objectives, accepting and discussing different opinions and viewpoints. The MAP Position Paper “Towards sustainable and resilient value chains” combines the results of AKI's research, the views of MAP members and their policy and research proposals. This Position Paper is part of the knowledge base that can shape future policy and research.

The SHERPA MAP Peloponnese, Greece, discussed the strengths and needs of their territory, with the aim to clarify the contribution of science and society to sustainable value chains.The MAP agreed that a more strategic approach to the food production process and the incorporation of sustainable practices would be key. A new generation of farmers could play a major role towards the establishment of sustainable value chains, as they are more eager to engage with and adopt sustainable practices. Knowledge of digital technologies is a critical enabler of the shift towards sustainable practices. The importance of the primary sector was highlighted, and farmers stressed the need to actively involve local cooperatives. Strengthening their role could enable the establishment of a common rule set for their operation. Focus should be given not only on individual actions but also on collaborations between actors.Participants noticed that measures and policies should be taken both at the local and national levels. They mentioned that the EU has already started considering policies that contribute to these issues. Further, EU-funded R&D programs could play a crucial role in furthering the adoption of sustainable value chains by Member States. EU rules advancing green transition and helping towards taking steps promoting transparency are important considerations for consumers, investors, and producers.From their point of view, emphasis could be given to letting citizens know the importance of cooperatives and their potential contribution towards the transition to sustainable agri-food value chains.

In the area of the SHERPA MAP Bieszczady (Poland), there are different examples of platforms that bring together stakeholders from science, local government and the local community. However, these are specialised groups, not necessarily known to the public. It is worth popularising on a larger scale these types of platforms, as their operation can bring benefits. An example is the Scientific Council of the Bieszczady National Park, which operates under the Minister of the Environment and whose role is to advise and support the park authorities over a 5-year period. Its sustainability is provided systemically through legislation.Another example is the Podkarpackie Federation of Civic Organizations "PARASOL", which aims to provide comprehensive assistance to regional organizations that request it. With the Ukranian war in Ukraine, the Federation established the PARASOL Group to help refugees. Maintaining this interface will depend on external funding.A third example is the cooperation established in the framework of specific projects, such as the one between the Olszanica Municipality and the Local Action Group, residents and entrepreneurs. In this case, a social economy enterprise was set up as a part of the revitalisation programme ''Bieszczad-ski - a revitalisation flywheel for the development of the Olszanica Gmina'', partially funded by the European Regional Development Fund. The opening of a social economy enterprise (Wańkowa Ski Resort) has been a positive stimulus, providing jobs, but also enhancing the entrepreneurial spirit of local residents and giving young people a reason to stay.These examples illustrate how Science-Society-Policy interfaces can build on SHERPA’s experience and support rural development.

In the SHERPA MAP Bulgaria, we found that the creation of MAP is a good instrument to set up a social dialogue. In fact, social dialogue needs a champion to facilitate and drive the communication, synthesize the results based on the opinions and visions of MAP members and it presumes to have a purpose and a common issue that may get those members together. The Science-Society-Policy architecture of the MAP helped to connect stakeholders from science, the public sector and the social communities. Stakeholders participated to look for ideas and proposals that could improve the situation in rural areas. The uniqueness of this approach is that science is involved as an unbiased party. Popularizing the MAPs could be a strong opportunity to enhance future cooperation and develop a system of work between different stakeholders, including science in the role of moderator/facilitator.With MAP Bulgaria, we found that civil society has a special place in helping rural areas. Establishing MAPs promoting policy dialogue and change to support vulnerable groups can facilitate the connection between society and policy. The chance to speak in a group format and have an in-depth conversation on a topic allowed for fruitful and constructive dialogue. MAP meetings provided an opportunity to look at rural problems from a broader perspective, sharing the impacts on the community and possible solutions, considering the needs of the local communities. The MAP activities resulted in very practical and valuable knowledge describing policy recommendations tailor-made for our problems. The added value was the active participation of people from different age groups and areas so that their needs and priorities could be considered, and they felt that they were listened to.

The SHERPA MAP Zachodniopomorskie, Poland, operates in a region characterised by a high level of socio-economic diversity, though most typically devoted to agricultural production. The MAP involved different groups of the local community: people with different educational backgrounds, fulfilling different functions, living and/or operating in functionally different rural areas of the region. This diversity provides the opportunities to consider the experience, perspectives and knowledge of representatives of different backgrounds, and to link scientific knowledge with "tacit" knowledge.The chance to speak freely, unhindered, on a given topic meant that it was easier to come to final conclusions together. The idea was to fully involve all meeting participants as co-authors of recommendations and guidelines. In their own words, "it was an interesting experience for them", while at the same time wondering "how to create such forums for the exchange of ideas and discussions in their small communities, how to create a community of people, thinking together, identifying with the place".The MAP activities resulted in very practical and valuable knowledge pointing out recommendations for the Common Agricultural Policy. An added value was the active participation of people from different age groups and different areas to ensure their needs and priorities could be considered. People also felt that they were listened to. From the researchers' point of view, the MAP meetings provided an opportunity to look at rural problems from a broader perspective, not only that a problem exists, but also what its important consequences are for the community and how it can be solved considering the needs of the local community.

The meetings of the SHERPA MAP in Central Greece were organised physically and virtually. Increased interest was showcased from stakeholders and many opinions were brought to discussion. In particular, MAP members stressed the need for the region to move towards sustainable value chains. The preparatory work helped the smooth implementation of the meetings, providing insights regarding the overall results of the Central Greece MAP. The main points that have been raised were: i) enhancement of trade for agri-food products at the local level, ii) adoption of innovative, technology-supported methods and solutions, iii) and empowerment of the role of cooperatives.It was underlined that sustainable value chains could bring together various stakeholders sharing a common vision based on commonly accepted ethical, social and environmental priorities. The need to bridge the gap between producers and modern digital tools was mentioned.With respect to recommendations, MAP members emphasised the policy measures should help to promote the consumption of locally produced agri-food products; and establish collaboration schemes between primary production and consumption and retail by taking measures for the effective and efficient information of consumers. According to the MAP’s vision, the education and training of entities involved in the agri-food value chain would play a major role. The MAP members commended that the minimisation of bureaucracy and relief from heavy taxation for the local actors would be helpful for establishing entrepreneurial activity. Incentives should be given to producers for adopting more environmentally friendly practices moving towards the establishment and sustainability of short value chains.

In the context of the design and implementation of the 2023-2027 LEADER program, the work of the SHERPA MAP South Region in France contributed to fuelling the debate on the future of rural areas by 2040. The MAP Position Papers brought forward specific proposals on rural governance of ecological transition and responses to climate change under the LEADER program. A special report adopted by the Region in December 2020 entitled "Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, a Region focused on rurality" incorporated the main analyses and proposals released by this MAP. The SHERPA Discussion Paper on climate change (2021) contributed to the reflections carried out within the framework of the revision of the regional spatial planning strategy (SRADDET), in particular during the workshop “What regional rural model in the light of climate change and land sobriety?" (2022). Thanks to the various SHERPA MAP Positions Papers, the MAP facilitator attended a working group on socio-economic and demographic changes at the regional level, under the coordination of the regional office of public statistics (INSEE) and a briefing note on rurality in the South Region was issued. Prior to these results, intense preparatory work by the facilitation team enabled to mobilize and aggregate existing data and knowledge on rural areas at the regional level. This work has made it possible to share a common vision and understanding of the regional context of rural areas and to identify major challenges, threats and opportunities.The constant support of the Regional Rural Network was key for facilitating exchanges between rural actors and ensuring the capitalization, promotion and dissemination of the MAP’s work.

Ensuring meaningful dialogue between various governance levels involved is fundamental to the proper functioning of MAPs. This is particularly relevant for rural actors, who often remain detached from the EU political context, possibly missing out on opportunities and the latest developments. On the other hand, local interests often remain overlooked by EU-level decision-makers.The unique design of SHERPA, with local MAPs, an EU-level MAP and a central team allows a constant dialogue between policy actors at the EU and local levels. Moreover, for the Wallonia MAP, the platform was facilitated by Ecorys, an EU-focused consultancy company, ensuring a strong link with the EU policy arena, whereas the involvement of the local network Ruralité, Environnement, Développement (R.E.D) helped to “root” it in the Belgian reality.The link with EU policy has been an important tool to stimulate MAP members to get involved in SHERPA. This has been achieved by showcasing the concrete contributions of SHERPA to EU rural policy throughout the different MAP activities. As the Wallonia MAP was established in the second phase of SHERPA, it was possible to show how the recommendations formulated by the MAPs in previous cycles have been discussed in the EU MAP and integrated into the Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas. This allowed MAP members to acknowledge the added value of SHERPA.The daily activities and management of the MAP also provided occasions to keep the members updated on the latest EU policy developments (via regular email updates, links to SHERPA deliverables of relevance, information about upcoming events, etc.) and through a short each meeting, a short recap of the ongoing EU-level activities was foreseen at the beginning of each meeting.

Creating inclusive and meaningful dialogue was the key to success for the Estonian MAP in SHERPA. This MAP achieved the trust and cooperation of MAP members quite quickly and was able to investigate the selected topics thoroughly. As both the facilitator and the monitor had previous work experience in the Estonian Ministry of Rural Affairs - therefore a comprehensive overview of the field - and some former contact with people involved, it was easier to gain members’ trust and encourage dialogue.The facilitator had an active role in the MAP discussions, where served quite like a journalist asking for comments for strong or controversial opinions and promoting healthy debate. This provided objective and reliable information and encouraged different perspectives.It was crucial to keep the MAP members up to date with all the information – what has happened meanwhile, what is our end goal, and why we need to do this. At the beginning of each meeting, it was also necessary to create a clear working plan to ensure MAP members would know what is expected from them. In addition, it was important to praise them after every successful meeting and emphasize the value of their input.The best way to have inclusive and meaningful discussions was through physical meetings. During physical meetings, the discussions continued at the lunch table - which contributed to an inclusive and meaningful dialogue as the MAP members felt comfortable while talking to each other. In conclusion, the key to creating and sustaining meaningful engagement and dialogue is via face-to-face meetings, skilful discussion management, and timely and comprehensive communication.

The participative processes undertaken in the SHERPA MAP Nienburg (Germany) provided opportunities to engage a set of local actors across policy, science and society in sharing information and views on sustainable and resilient value chains.The results emphasise the importance of networking and capacity building activities to strengthen the shared appreciation, trust and cooperation between actors as a basis for developing concrete practical solutions to a jointly identified key need of the rural area.The main lessons and key uptakes on facilitating engagement of a diverse set of local actors are:• To establish trust in a Multi-Actor Platforms takes time. In particular, developing a practical solution to a jointly identified key need of the rural area might require time that goes beyond a single project cycle;• To design platforms in a structured way, aiming to create and strengthen long-term relationships;• To allow flexibility in composition of participants at workshops and to enable a plurality of perspectives, providing an open space for sharing practical experiences and lessons learnt in developing or engaging in more sustainable value chains;• To account for sufficient time on reflecting on local needs and potentials;• To involve a trusted local actor as intermediary facilitates identification and recruitment of different actors;• To utilise a mix of methods of engagement adapting to the preferences, motivation, connectedness and remote access of local actors;• To integrate evidence from examples of past or current local value chain initiatives, as well as to ensure local embeddedness of the results act as levers to highlight the relevance for a particular context.

Creating meaningful engagement and dialogue has been one of the main objectives of the SHERPA MAP Iași in Romania. The diverse composition of MAP Iași members contributed to the development of a responsible community for the acquisition and consumption of agrifood products and connecting small local producers with final consumers. Members of this MAP included actors already involved in developing a responsible community in these topics. This diversity of actors enabled a constructive dialogue between local public authorities, producers, researchers and civil society representatives.The identification of common problems, finding the solutions and implementing them, contributed to the development of a long-term dialogue between stakeholders involved in the MAP Iași that, based on the results, will most likely continue and evolve in new forms of collaboration.Public events organised with the participation of actors involved in MAP Iași highlighted some recommendations regarding the creation of active involvement and support for a constructive dialogue:• Bringing together the quadruple helix representatives (authorities, business environment, research and NGOs);• Identifying common problems and solutions for the development of sustainable short supply chains;• Enhancing the interests of relevant actors involved in short supply chains in order to achieve long-term cohesion between participants;• Involving members of MAP Iași as stakeholders in other projects with local, national or European funding in order to extend the engagement and constructive dialogue process.

The SHERPA MAP Montagna Toscana focuses on the chestnut flour value chain. The area is characterised by several fragilities in terms of land abandonment, climate change, and lack of essential services and infrastructure for inhabitants. The activities carried out pointed out the willingness of local stakeholders to preserve and re-activate the chestnut flour value chain. Now, this value chain is at risk of disappearance, and it cannot represent a full-time occupation for the farmers involved. Nevertheless, a strong socio-cultural value is associated with the chestnut flour value chain, which represents a way to strengthen social ties and establish a collaborative environment among farmers based on trust, pursue environmental and biodiversity preservation, preserve and enliven intangible cultural heritage, recovery and re-use abandoned assets.Participation in SHERPA enabled civil society representatives to widen their network by getting in direct contact with researchers and regional-level policymakers. Moreover, the project established a continuative dialogue among local stakeholders which could reflect on the future of the mountain area and its value chain. Workshops and meetings were used to share visions and positions about potential innovations and sustainable practices that can be implemented at the local level, also in collaboration with the university. An example could be increasing chestnut producers’ market power through their participation in complementary and alternative supply chain models. Such elements have been condensed and presented in the MAP Position Paper. This Position Paper provides several recommendations to the MAP actors.

The benefits for society actors who participate in a multi-actor dialogue include exchanging experiences, networking with other actors voicing their perspectives and being heard. In the SHERPA MAP Southeast, participants were invited to join the dialogue through well-known contacts. Some participants joined out of curiosity or a desire to share their experiences and vision, others joined due to specific interests. Citizens joining the MAP dialogue were all actively involved in citizen initiatives on nature. For them, participation had the potential to contribute to the improvement of their initiative or their living conditions. The MAP provided a platform for discussing and interacting with other societal actors, as well as with actors from policy and research. Society actors shared a diverse range of experiences related to their local initiatives, including both successes and challenges. One notable challenge was establishing new relationships and finding effective ways of collaborating with the municipal services, which have the overall responsibility for managing the natural resources. The key lesson for engaging society in policy processes is to dedicate time and effort to establishing strong connections between the dialogue topic and the everyday reality. It is meaningful to elucidate to citizens and other actors how policy at various levels influences the local context and the issues at hand. This deserves due attention before and during the dialogue. It is important to recognise that citizen involvement in nature and land use planning should not be solely viewed as nature management but as a comprehensive social intervention with significant contributions to social cohesion and broad prosperity

Engagement in a Multi-Actor-Platform (MAP) contributes to creating a policy setting that does justice to the rural reality and creates a flourishing rural life. The experiences of the Network of Large Rural Municipalities (P10) in the Netherlands shed light on the different forms MAPs can take to shape policy processes. It is worth noticing that for policy actors, engaging in a Science-Society-Policy interface means contributing to policy-making in the widest sense of the word. Policy actors do not expect the MAP dialogue to create progress in any specific policy arena. The work of the policy maker consists of communicating in multiple arenas, platforms, tables and meeting rooms, streets and kitchen tables. This is the basis for policy preparation, formulation and implementation. In this context what the MAP does provide is a non-politicised space for dialogue and for exchange. This is valuable in itself. The process in the MAP P10 predominantly created a space to exchange with other regions and the opportunity to join forces with other countries.The linkages to other levels of policy making are also valuable and being part of an international project gives some importance to rural areas. It provides opportunities to make yourself heard and increases the chance of being listened to. The true policy actor a public actor who is in it for the public good. Their contribution is providing insight into the nuanced policy dialogue and the status of the ongoing policy process, but most importantly listening to how the dialogue unfolds. This allows them to share experiences and learn from other areas. Especially in these polarised times, it is important to create non-politicised spaces for dialogue as they can play an important role in moving forward.

Addressing the accelerated environmental change caused by climate change requires better communication between scientists, managers, decision-makers, media and the public to find the most effective solutions to environmental issues. For farmers, responses to environmental and climate challenges often involve costs and changes in land use practices. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that policy proposes and promotes solutions that are applicable and effective based on scientific evidence. The setting up and implementation of MAPs confirmed this expectation, speeding up and improving communication between policy, science and society.The SHERPA Discussion Paper provided local MAP members with short and systematic summaries of relevant international and EU research scientific results, providing an opportunity to learn more about scientific evidence. Such summaries of the state of the art saved considerable time, accelerated the flow of information and enabled MAP members to focus on local specificities.In addition, there has been a progressive increase in attention to developments and innovations to improve management practices. Societal actors can also play a catalytic role in this process, as they can contribute to the identification of good practices developed by farmers. Supporting these local innovations with scientific evidence can accelerate the identification of best practices that can be easily and quickly applied. MAPs could be effective in identifying knowledge gaps that need to be demonstrated by scientists and researchers. In this sense, MAPs enables scientific actors to focus on the production of high-quality knowledge that can be applied to solve practical problems as they arise.

Evidence-based science has been important for the work in SHERPA MAP Norrbotten, Sweden. The SHERPA Discussion paper was sent out before meetings and presented in Swedish by the Facilitator and Monitor at the beginning of meetings. Produced by SHERPA partners and based on scientific evidence, this document worked as a background for the follow-up discussions. In addition to this, material produced or collected by the MAP members was also utilised. The Discussion Paper was foremost important to find a common ground in the discussions and to start the conversation.In addition, the MAP members from the research sector presented their work and gave suggestions on articles and other studies. Simultaneously, members from regional and national authorities provided the MAP members with statistics and information from studies.It is worth noting that the Norrbotten region differs from several other European regions represented in SHERPA because of its location in the north, its large size and sparsely populated areas. Therefore, some aspects highlighted in the Discussion paper did not apply to Norrbotten. However, the Discussion paper provided an opportunity to compare Norrbotten to other European regions, hence contributing to a deeper understanding of the local circumstances.In the instance of the SHERPA project, where several actors with different backgrounds and thematic focuses come together, evidence-based science is central to establishing common ground and a benchmark from where the discussion starts. This becomes even more important given the limited time and number of meetings involved in this process.

The schedule of developing and reporting on, international agreements provides frameworks for public policy from pan-national to local government levels.
Each sector represented in Multi-Actor Platforms (MAPs) contributes its own knowledge of presenting evidence, communicating key messages, or insights to emerging opportunities for informing or influencing development of policy relevant to such frameworks.
Pathways to inform policy take different routes for each sector in the Platforms. Public institutions at regional or local levels have responsibilities for developing policies within their remits, alongside implementing higher levels of public policy (Scotland, UK). 
These institutions have established processes to inform policy and decision-making. Their participation in EU projects is well-established practice, but MAPs for co-learning and co-constructing solutions are new forums through which to engage with wider actor networks. 
A key function has been to provide relevant, authoritative, evidence to policy interests, and interpretation of the findings. Members representing civil society, including communities and business, augment the evidence base from sectors of relevance.
In 2021, the MAPs focused on the issue of climate change, and their visions of the roles of rural areas in achieving policy targets by 2045. Ambitions to feed the policy process motivated an application to be represented at the UNFCC COP26 in November 2021. The process of developing the proposal, and its subsequent acceptance, energised the MAPs on how a platform with global significance can be used to create impacts benefitting their sectors.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

Creating and operating the Multi-Actor Platform in Scotland facilitated impacts of development of long-term relationships, and networks, and were instrumental in the uptake and generation of knowledge. 
Each member facilitates two-way engagement with wider networks. These enable inflows of knowledge to discourse in the MAP, from personal experiences or forums represented and sharing out of emerging knowledge (e.g. scientific evidence relating to rural inequalities or land use change). 
Feedback reported, in a rapid changing policy environment, access to the evidence bases of EU and Scottish level discussion papers relating to rural areas, was valuable for stimulating and informing debate, and identifying shared aspiration and challenges. 
It provided sources of external knowledge to inform a position or action, or validation of positions taken in public authorities and the exploitation of information and outputs by members for their purposes. As a result, contributions to developing a vision for rural areas were included in their presentations to external bodies (e.g. Scottish Parliament Rural Policy Group), and the wider context of actions by members in each sector. 
The research findings from a science, policy and society forum should be designed to be relatable to its members. Time is well invested in maintaining knowledge of the contexts of platform members, on an ongoing basis, not only when invited to participate. Contexts evolve, with individuals changing roles and responsibilities, and organisations changing remits. Ensuring synergies in content and interests improves the prospects of meaningful dialogue being maintained into the longer term.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The Galician MAP linked its work in SHERPA to the development of the CAP Strategic Plan in Spain.
This was due to the coincidence in the calendar of both activities and the fact that the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC) team, in charge of the MAP, is also supporting the regional government in the development of the plan and participating in the discussions at national level.
Furthermore, the MAP members were very interested in the topic because most of the rural funds in Galicia come from Europe (EAFRD).
Based on this experience, there are some learnings on how to link different policy levels in the Galician context. 
• Think on the linkage already when forming the group. Our MAP counts on people from policy at local and regional levels. The USC team scaled up, connecting with the EU level (through SHERPA) and the national and regional levels through the work on the CAP Strategic Plans.
• Existing organisations can help to reach further, such as GALAG (Galician Association of Local Action Groups), which connect us with other municipalities. 
• Ensure representativeness and take advantage of multiple profiles e.g., some of the mayors in the MAP are regional councillors as well; they come from different parts of the region, represent a variety of rural areas and are from different political parties. Regarding power, a balanced group does not necessarily mean an even number of people of each type of stakeholder. For example, the society group is higher, because of the wide range of topics discussed.
• Keep people engaged and motivated, by managing expectations, showing progress and ensuring the results are correctly considered (e.g. well reflected in SHERPA papers).

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The first two years of running the Multi-Actor Platform IDRA were marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, and all activities had to be organised online. MAP members did not know each other before the start of the project, and have mostly not met in real life. 
However there are some advantages of online interaction: 
- It facilitates the participation of more members as there is no need to travel and it requires less time commitment and cuts down the costs of organisation and travel. 
- It facilitates the participation of members from remote places, thereby enriching the debate with new and different perspectives. 
- It facilitates the definition of clearer and more concise objectives of the meetings, as the meetings have to be shorter and better organised online. 
The main disadvantages with meetings online have been that: 
• Discussion and moderation are more complicated since: it is difficult to cut off or interrupt people; limiting participants’ interventions impacts the spontaneity and the possibility to continue the thread of the discussion with another participant; and the online tools limit the dynamic interactions between participants. Also, connection problems and/or lack of knowledge or experience with online tools limits spontaneity. This results in a loss of generation of ideas and information. 
• It is complicated to maintain the concentration, attention and interest of the participants whose main focus is on their own intervention in the meeting. 
• It is very complicated to organise breaks which allow for a social interaction and networking between the participants, which many times is more important than the interaction during the meeting itself.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

In Slovenia, the dialogue between agricultural stakeholders and government has been quite strong, while the role of science was smaller. 
SVARUN MAP built on an existing network and expanded it to include more scientific and non-agricultural actors. This resulted in some difficulties, especially in the need to overcome silo thinking and the lack of insight into other knowledge- and value-systems. 
However, there was a readiness for dialogue present and attendance of events was good, even if the debate sometimes evolved into individuals defending the interests of their respective group. 
Such outbursts became rarer over time, especially when work shifted to specific issues with moderated, question-led debates. The role of the moderators in smaller groups was to keep discussions science-based, while answering very concrete questions and curbing debates when they went off course. In larger groups, you can make use of various tools and methods:
- stakeholder engagement tools (survey, Mentimeter);
- scenario-based approach building on the main discourses;
- rounds of discussion and confirmation, and providing written opinions;
- wide dissemination of documents with relatively high-publicity events.
Recommendations:
• familiarise themselves (moderators) very well with the topic at hand and integrate new knowledge as it arises;
• find as many relevant stakeholders as possible; and disseminate events and documents broadly;
• make the questions to be answered clear and concrete to avoid digression, but make note of contentious issues when they do come up;
• plan at least one opportunity for feedback to ensure legitimacy for as many of the groups involved as possible.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

Multi-actors dialogue platforms in rural areas could have a decisive contribution in co-producing a common shared vision as a basis for integrated actions for a sustainable regional development and a commitment to implementation. 
The combination of different types of knowledge and experiences creates a better mutual understanding on perspectives from which rural issues are understood and perceived by different categories of actors.
Participation and involvement in the exchange of knowledge between multiple rural actors inside a MAP must be open and undisguisedly to contribute to rebuilding and strengthening mutual trust. Trust is a decisive factor for consensus in co-creation and co-action processes.
Ensuring such an open environment in the MAP is important to capture diversity of opinions and perspectives, aggregate the different stakeholder’s interest, find out common points and build on them a common shared vision for the rural future. 
Based on the experiences from the Rural Transylvania MAP, building consensus is a two-step process: a) capture, find out and share within the group the rationality behind each stakeholder’ opinion; and b) identify common values, expectations, provisions as a space for mutual understanding and co-creation. 
Recommendations:
• detail the specificity of diverse opinions based on the contexts or stakeholders’ group perspective, 
• ask for other stakeholders’ point of view, 
• ask participants to project on the long term run effects, and
• find and build on common points the multi-actor shared vision.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

MAP RURAL_PT was created, focusing on the Centro region of Portugal. Even though the MAP activities developed entirely online, they allowed a very interesting level of discussion. Actions were identified that can contribute for this region to become a diversified, young, and innovative region, in 2040, with the capacity to attract investment and talent that leads in the evolution towards a more sustainable society. 
Throughout this exercise, the selection of civil society actors to be involved in this discussion was very important to achieve different perspectives and visions on the various sectors related to rural development. 
One of the successful exercises with civil society was a survey targeted primarily at the local community. 
The biggest challenge identified was how to maintain civil society actors involved and engaged in the MAP throughout the cycle. It became imperative to make them understand the importance of their engagement in this discussion, highlighting as incentive the real impact that will have at the European policy level.
The main lessons learned were: 
• individual meetings with each member, especially at the start-up phase of the MAP; 
• face-to-face group meetings to exchange ideas, knowledge and perspectives, promoting the creation of small group work dynamics. 
The MAP civil society actors recognised the importance of the opportunity to participate in a discussion where they are normally only heard at the conclusion validation stage and felt that their participation enriched the discussion and sought to give a sense of greater proximity to the territory and its concrete problems.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

With a growing complexity of socio-economic and environmental systems, the need for informed decision-making is rising. 
The most recent research findings offer the most objective and carefully conducted analyses of the problems facing different communities and areas. Therefore, the research findings should be a base for the Multi-Actor Platform (MAP) dialogue and for policy-making.
The experience of MAP Zielone Sąsiedztwo brings useful insights on how to create an environment enabling capitalising on research findings. 
To facilitate the discussions, we used the discussion paper prepared by the project team. The MAP experiences show that the key aspect of such an enabling environment is effective communication among different stakeholder groups. 
All the stakeholders must be willing to engage in a debate and open to listen to others and capable of presenting their opinions and knowledge in a clear way. Therefore, research findings must be presented in a way that can be understood by all the stakeholders. Yet, to achieve the common understanding it is necessary that policy-makers and other stakeholders have the capacity to understand the research methods and risks of bias.
Key for capitalising on research findings is building a common trust and communication among stakeholders. This requires systematically in research and in familiarising stakeholders with the research findings and their significance. A constant engagement in dialogue is vital for improving both public understanding and policy-making.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The Dutch MAP is built on an existing multi-stakeholder network, focused on the development of the fruit sector in the river region. 
The MAP consists of members from science, society and policy, but the society representation refers to participants from the private sector only, thus citizens were missing from this composition. However, as citizens are important enablers when creating a vision with impact on their direct environment, the MAP coordinators looked at ways to include and engage them. Yet this presented difficulties in engagement. 
Some MAP members were reticent of action groups, citizens thought they needed to represent specific groups instead of being there as individuals. 
In addition, there was a knowledge gap between the citizens and the existing MAP members; nonetheless, this was dealt with by giving sufficient information about fruit growing and the new developments in the sector. 
This effort results in (minimal, but sufficient) input from the citizens’ side to the work of the MAP.
Even though, involving civil society actors in workshops was considered complex and difficult by some primary stakeholders (fruit sector), the views and interests of such actors and their potential roles to play, do matter. 
A diversified and interactive approach is now being applied through multi-stakeholder workshops, and direct interactions with stakeholders not present in the workshop.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The MAP of Lithuania “Circular Bio-economy – Lithuania” (CBioLit) representing Lithuanian rural areas (i.e. territorial coverage; level of expertise; balanced representation of interests by roles played in society, science and policy-making). 

The opportunity to participate in person and in virtual discussions at the round table, despite the drastic restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, had a positive overall feeling of engagement and contribution to the creation of a reflective long-term European rural vision, looking at the most relevant issues.

Engaging remotely, through online meetings, brought both advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, it was convenient to join the platform and participate alongside other work-related tasks, allowing for less time and costs expenses; on the other hand, online meetings are much less interactive and it is hard to ensure one-by-one dialogue.

However, the continuous cooperation in SHERPA policy dialogue, based on the Delfi methodology, was recognised as successful and fruitful due to its versatility, reflectivity, and inclusiveness in the participation of consensus-based bottom-up policy-making. It is worth further exploration, in combination with regular and close interaction among MAP members.

The success is grounded in the balance of both online (remote) and physical interaction methods, since solely remote interaction is fruitful only in case there is enough trust among actors.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

MAP Tuscany covers the whole Tuscany region, in Central Italy. It was set up within the SHERPA project but built upon longstanding relationships, especially between researchers and policy-makers, with the Regional Department of Agriculture and Rural Development having a crucial role in the process. 
The MAP encompasses also the civil society, who are more flexible in terms of their involvement and represent areas that are more specific. 
The idea underpinning the MAP was for UNIPI to create a space whereby to cement the relationships, experiences and knowledge gathered along past years. 
When COVID-19 hit, the first consequence for the MAP’s work entailed turning to remote mode of operation. This, we found, was not necessarily negative. 
First, remote working increased participation, as people were able to attend a higher number of events, compared to physical meetings. Second, we had to make a virtue out of necessity and learn to use and adapt available online tools to the needs of each case (not least: saving financial and time resources!). 
On the flip side, we realised that remote working might not leave enough room to informal interactions and exchange, essential to building those good work relationships on which we have based the very foundations of the MAP. 
Considering our strength lies in networking, a learning question might read: what consequences will online interactions have in the long-run?

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

Balancing actors’ representation in a Multi-Actor Platform (MAP) entails the challenge of selecting the “right” stakeholders in a way that a small group of experts can represent different perspectives and sectors. 
In building the Emilia-Romagna MAP, this has meant to include actors representing the different typologies of rural areas of the region (i.e., plain/intensive and hilly-mountainous/abandoned), as well as to involve stakeholders that are both very knowledgeable of their sector/interest, and able to have an overarching vision on agriculture and rural development issues.
Some learnings and recommendations for other MAPs, are:
• Selection of stakeholders and processing of information are of capital importance to balance actors’ representation within the MAP. Both activities, of course, imply subjective choices by the research team. Subjectivity cannot be avoided but can be nuanced, for instance, by integrating expert-based consultation in the MAP with other, more inclusive, consultation approaches (e.g. survey). 
• It is important to include as much as possible all the different perspectives. However, be aware that in complex and multifaceted contexts this may hamper the identification of the key priorities. 
• It is not only important to balance representation among science, society and policy groups, but also within each group. For instance, trying to include policy actors belonging to different sectors (e.g., rural development and landscape planning) and to different government levels (e.g. regional and local). 
• To build the MAP it is good to start from pre-existing and consolidated networks and from a group of core actors.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

Establishing a meaningful dialogue is essential to achieve qualified project results. In Central Eastern Europe there is a general perception that external conditions are the biggest obstacle to development. 
To build an effective dialogue, focus should be on hardships originated from the external environment. 
Analysing the pessimistic scenarios, recognising the main impediments, the experts outline creative solutions to mitigate the effects of the critical factors. 
Some of the main steps taken by the MAP to ensure a meaningful dialogue were the following:
• A literature review is needed to get better acquainted with the topic. In addition to MAP experts, ad-hoc experts can also be invited to enlarge the knowledge and experiences shared. Use of participatory methods are important for gathering diverse opinions.
• Defining the main directions, and examine the relevance of topics through questionnaires. Discuss the most important topics with experts through interviews. Collate the different views of the focus group. Close cooperation and networking activities with platforms or networks of relevant ongoing projects is very valuable.
• An established and transparent process results into a higher engagement of participants, especially of the policy group. MAP coordination is crucial to ensure wide-ranging debates. Consensus or agreement among the members of the group was rather fast. Feedback was collected on the continuation of the work, to further improve and enhance a meaningful dialogue in the platform.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The MAP of South Aegean in Greece operates at regional level.
The main lessons learnt and recommendations for engaging actors that are more difficult to reach or who are not ‘the usual suspects’ in engaging with traditional rural development actors, are presented below. 
In the context of the MAP activities, the most difficult group of stakeholders to reach were the policy-makers, due to their busy schedules, but also the elderly community members who are less familiar with digital technology.
As all interactions of the MAP were done online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this created additional challenges in engaging some less connected actors.
Therefore, it is recommended to create different opportunities for engagement, e.g., interviews, informal conversations, surveys, group discussions, allowing everybody to contribute and adapting the means of communication (meetings, telephone, online) to the preferences of the actors.
It is also important to take the necessary time to build relations and trust and take an exploratory approach in early stages. Sharing information material with potential members has helped to enhance the understanding of the SHERPA project, its context and the role of MAPs.
Additionally, presenting the main findings of the desk research was useful to boost engagements, as well as selecting topics for discussion which were of interest to the members, creating an attractive dialogue and adding value for them.
A key factor is to keep people engaged and motivated, manage expectations, show progress and ensure the results are correctly considered.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The participative processes undertaken in the Multi-Actor Platform of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany, provided opportunities to engage a diverse set of actors across policy, science and society in sharing information and views on a future vision for rural areas. 
The results emphasise the importance of networking and capacity building activities to strengthen the shared appreciation, trust and cooperation between actors in socially and culturally viable rural communities. 
This is the basis to enable local actors to actively participate in the governance of rural areas.
The main lessons are:

• to establish trust in new Multi-Actor Platforms takes time and regular engagements are critical to facilitate the process;
• to utilise a mix of methods of engagement adapting to the preferences, motivation, connectedness and remote access of local actors;
• to involve a trusted local actor as intermediary, facilitates the identification and recruitment of different actors;
• to engage the young generation through recruitment at universities, vocational schools representing rural youth organisations;
• to involve rural community representatives through engaging with social community groups including sport clubs;
• to engage urban actors to capture rural-urban linkages, e.g. through engagement with food policy councils;
• to design platforms in a structured way, aiming to create and strengthen long-term relationships.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The regional Multi-Actor Platform (MAP) of South of France brought together regional policy-makers and rural practitioners. Both actors are used to prepare and to implement regional and EU policies which cover rural areas (EAFRD, ERDF, etc.), yet they have rarely had any opportunity to reflect on present and future ruralities at regional level. 
In 2020, the platform chose the topic of Long-Term Vision for Rural Areas (LTVRA) to look at future challenges to be addressed in rural areas and for rural communities. 
The resulting SHERPA MAP document was of great interest to the regional Council which used it for drafting and voting a special report on regional ruralities.
Recommendations for practitioners and coordinators of multi-actor platforms:
• Informing directly regional policy-makers about EU timeline at least two years before (i.e. future CAP programmes, LTVRA process) to be able to feed the policy process;
• Proposing a “Non-profit knowledge sharing process” on future ruralities, to equip policy-makers and rural practitioners with expanded insights on regional trends and challenges;
• Setting up a balanced MAP between researchers, rural practitioners and policy-makers which share common cross-cutting interests and experiences on rural areas;
• Embarking equally regional civil servants and rural mayors in the process as they are key policy-makers for designing and implementing rural policies at local and regional levels;
• Providing synthesis, facts and figures to MAP members on regional rural trends and challenges, (incl. on demography);
• Being clear about objectives and expected results, to deliver outputs for both MAP members and for EU policy-makers.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The Multi-Actor Platform Suomi-Finland has been constructed on several existing Finnish rural networks. MAP members represent different levels and areas of policy, including central government, regional and local levels; as well as members from producers’ organisations, cultural associations, language communities, etc.
Linking these different spheres works well, since the composition was consciously built to reflect the diversity of Finnish rural areas, ranging from peri-urban to sparsely populated ones. Further, the MAP managed to have different levels and spheres of governance involved, contributing with insights from different knowledge domains. This is important for the creation of nuanced, complementary and alternative future images and policy options. 
Ultimately, linking these domains works well because of the members whom are very eager and enthusiastic in the group work. Everyone contributes with valuable input and nobody is overly dominant.
Practical recommendations for a good group dynamic:
• Aim to achieve a good composition of the group, ensuring participation from different levels of governance (national, regional, local) and of societal actors, gender balance, and in this case, language representation of both Finnish and Swedish communities.
• Inform in advance of all meetings, the clear goals of the meeting or activity, send the background material and invite those not able to attend to share their input bilaterally.
• During the meeting or activity, give space to everyone to contribute and make them feel heard.
• Invite members to further disseminate the results with their networks, and allow them to give feedback.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

MAP Denmark is a newly established platform that was set up in close cooperation with and anchored within the Rural Joint Council of Denmark. The platform represents a broad, diverse, and nuanced rural areas of Denmark. 
Diversity is important for many different factors in particular different stakes, geographical coverage, gender, age, area of expertise, and government level in rural areas.
Ensuring such diversity in the MAP is important to create nuanced conversations and discussions, secure input from different perspectives, and thereby create valuable exchanges between rural stakeholders. 
Based on the experiences from MAP Denmark, we find that diversity is a very important component of a meaningful multi-stakeholder interaction, ensuring diversity is a continuous process. 
It is highly recommend for anyone interested or involved in multi-actor processes to continue to reflect on the composition of the group throughout the span of the project or initiative. Ask yourself critically whether important perspectives are missing, and if new members (people, organisations, businesses or other representatives) should be invited to participate or external experts should be asked to contribute to a certain topic. 
Furthermore, make diversity a transparent and inclusive process by involving the MAP members continuously in the dialogues and asking if perspectives are missing to ensure a broad and balanced representation. 
Under the second thematic cycle in the SHERPA project, four new MAP members were asked to join to secure a broader diversity by covering perspectives as youth, geographical coverage, and environment and nature. 

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the work of the MAP VENUS in Czechia. Some members were busy solving issues related to COVID-19, while other members experienced stress and a lack of time that resulted in less participation than expected. Various physical encounters had to be cancelled. 
The MAP found it challenging to organise digital meetings with the same quality of discussions. The transition to the digital environment decreased the participation and made the development of project documents slower. One positive effect is that it has been easier to share information with participants in remote areas.
Nonetheless, there is a need for training on how to involve more people in discussions through online platforms. 
The effects of COVID-19 are large but not liquidating, however, there is a risk of losing input and opinions when people are not comfortable with the digital format, when people do not access computers nor have good internet connection, and if the quality of meetings is not appropriate. Yet, online platforms can save time and reduce costs.
Some practical recommendations that have been helpful:
• Get a good understanding of the tools you will be using so as to foster engagement of all participants.
• Send important documents in advance to the participants of the meeting.
• If it is not possible to meet in the field, create videos about the problem that is being solved.
• Publish or make available the results of the meeting or provide information on the course of the meeting.
• A questionnaire survey conducted by an interviewer will yield more information and authenticity than an online survey.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/

Creating inclusive and consensus dialogue is the key to the success of the SHERPA MAP in Bulgaria. The setup of such dialogue is the distinctive feature of MAP Bulgaria coordinated by the Institute of Agricultural Economics (IAE). 
Due to lack of representativeness of the available civil organizations in the rural areas and low level of common collective actions, the MAP Bulgaria relies and focuses on participation of experts and professionals in order to create meaningful dialogue. 
This dialogue provides objective and reliable information on particular topics of interest for public authorities and society members in the network, to discuss, propose and take part in the process of finding solutions.
The challenges are how to ensure a more workable and effective transmission where the accepted and embraced conclusions and ideas from this dialogue are materialised in implementation. Thus, the main achievement of MAP Bulgaria is in creating a platform that can meaningfully contribute and facilitate public decision-making.
Starting the work on SHERPA MAP enabled many of the contacts between individual partners to develop, and other joint initiatives between them are animated and implemented. One of the main goals is to foster sustainability of this type of platform, which can be a very well-functioning mechanism for cooperation and dialogue. 
The ultimate outcome is the creation of sustainability and consensus-oriented dialogue between the different partners, leading to:
- Improving dialogue and understanding capabilities of involved stakeholders. 
- Creating reliable and valuable common positions on behalf of rural communities.

More info: https://rural-interfaces.eu/practice-abstracts/