Government support to operational groups for innovation in agriculture Understanding the framing of the government support to networks Monica Commandeur

Foto: Monica Commandeur

Photos: MonicaCommandeur Commandeur Foto: Monica

Introduction

 The EU and national governments are eager to stimulate innovative processes

 This requires reframing of government support measures ● from classical categories to co-creative processes ● from demanding results to stimulating energy ● etc.

 Since the EU and national governments are so eager, ● then why is it so hard to organise?

Example: government stimulation of knowledge exchange networks in the agricultural sector of the Netherlands

 Basic problems of the aspect of government interference: 1. the aspect contains elements of both:  ‘Education and knowledge dissemination outside institutes’  ‘Public-private business cooperation in innovation’

2. unclear ownership of the various types of products:  Initial plan development and problem articulation  Project results



What can we learn from how these problems were solved so far?

Why do these problems exist?

1.

Governments should refrain from interfering with business competiveness;

● So expected individual business gains (from public-private partnership) should be interfered with, by the support

2.

Governments should not manipulate the market values of any deliverables with a specific owner;

● So how can we perceive the extent of ownership of e.g.:  project plans (copyrights protection)?  the insights gained from a problem articulation?

 knowledge results benefitting a (sub)group or community?

Dutch innovative knowledge networks in the perception of the legal context

1.

They are perceived as collectives of businesses that engage in knowledge development activities outside institutes, resulting in a public-private cooperation in innovation

2.

The recognition of the project plans as “products”, resulting from intellectual work is unclear (i.e.: not supported)

3.

However, project plan adaptations are possible throughout the project execution, within the project budget limits

4.

Through active participation, it is expected that external support is attracted and/ or the results will lead to gains from increased competitiveness of a total of 20-30% of the execution costs (including the project leader costs for the project execution)  (i.e. about 45-55% of all project costs excl. the project leader)

Discussion 1: to what extent, and which part of the activities can be seen as:

 “Knowledge development activities outside institutes” ● Consequences:

 subsidy grant up to 100% are possible  resulting products cannot be protected from use by others (not even e.g. by copyrights or patents)

 “Public-private cooperation in innovation” ● Consequences:

 only limited levels of subsidies are possible to avoid market disturbance for competitiveness (usually 35-70%)

 resulting products can be protected from use by others (e.g. by copyrights or patents)

Discussion 2: Is a project plan of a knowledge network a product in itself?

If no: than what is the legal difference between a project

design e.g. in architecture or crafts (legally recognised) and a project design in a knowledge network?

● Consequence if no: the project plan falls into the category

of “products that cannot be protected from use by others”

If yes: than who is the owner, how can the product be

validated, to what extent can it be marketed or protected from use by others, and who are the “others” in case of a network?

● Note: by international law all intellectual rights (copyrights) protection is automatically owned by the author/ designer.

Discussion 3: project plan adaptations during the project execution

 Currently: project plan adaptations are allowed unlimitedly, as long as the project goals are still pursued.

● How should project goals be perceived; are they the overall aim, the specific objectives or the specified deliverables? ● Usually it is no problem for the payment of the grant, if a specific goal is pursued, but failed to achieve; however… ● Which type of added activities should or should not be allowed considering the goals, under the grant conditions? ● Should it be possible to write a project plan in the way that the assessors like to read it, and next execute the project in the way that you like to do it?

Discussion 4a: expected external support and increased competitiveness

 There is no record of any substantiated research about the direct

external support or the direct business gains from increased competitiveness, due to the participation in knowledge networks

● The largest supplier of project leaders (DLV) estimates the

average external supports or direct business gains at 0-5% ● Motivation: participating in knowledge networks is fun and interesting to do, but the result products seldom provide direct business advantages to the participants and cannot be protected from use by others

Discussion 4b: stimulating active farmers’ participation

1.

The question “how to deal with subsidy % reduction?”, is an incentive to creative financial administration :

● Creative accountancy agencies will be able to find (legally allowed) ways to deal with the financial administration of the gap between official project costs and actual grant.

2.

Requiring that farmers should administrate the hours that they spent in a project is an incentive to creative time administration

3.

The best stimulation of active farmers’ participation is requiring that a certain % of the grant is invested in activities by the farmers (or their employees), expressed in terms of deliverables.

Conclusion

 Innovative knowledge exchange networks are combinations of : ● A kind of public-private business cooperation in innovation as far as project plan development is concerned  The plan author/designer (project leader) is the legal owner;  It is fair to submit the resulting product for granting in itself (e.g. with a lump sum related to the requested complexity)

● A kind of education and knowledge dissemination outside institutes as far as the project execution is concerned  Deliverables and result products seldom provide direct business advantages to the participants

 cannot be protected from use by others

Final remark

In this presentation we have not discussed the various duty levels of project leaders concerning:

•

individual project leadership

Versus:

•

competence building (intervision about project leaderships)

And:

•

Collective knowledge dissemination centres (websites) about all knowledge network groups under the same formula.

© foto: Monica Commandeur