FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Foods Objectives/Expected Results/Partnership Quality, safety, reduced cost, increased competiveness Countries Involved : AT, CH, CZ, DE, DK, FIN, FR, GR, Israel, IT, NL, PT, Turkey, UK New technologies, Protected & field crops, fruit, pork and dairy; (production, processing, Rigorous evaluation of systems; marketing). Supporting information All down the chain on, notably, quality, safety and impacts. Proposed WP 7 - Audits Environmental & sustainability. Cost benefit EC-Contr. : and impact analyses. Dissemination and Training 14. 4 mio € WP 2 - Quality, safety WP 1 and health Consumer expectations and attitudes WP 3 -Crop production MANAGEMENT strategies WP 5 - Processing WP 4 - Livestock production WP 6 Strategies to improve all along the chain 1

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Foods From the Evaluation Summary Report 1 Relevance (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)This comprehensive proposal covers all the scientific, technical, socio-economic and policy objectives of the work programme. In particular the proposal will address consumer attitudes and expectations, impact of organic foods on nutritional, sensory, microbiological and toxicological quality/safety of foods, development of new technologies to improve quality and safety and identification of socio-economic, environmental and sustainability impacts of the project innovations. A major strength of this integrated proposal is that it examines the whole food chain for a number of sectors including protected crops (tomato), field vegetables (lettuce) fruit (apple), cereal (wheat), pork, dairy and poultry. Mark: 5 2. Potential impact (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)The potential impact is rated very highly. The proposal is very ambitious and by operating at the European level it will bring together the multi-national multi-disciplinary team necessary to make an impact on increasing the competitiveness of the organic industry in a number of sectors to the benefit of the European consumers. The approach to some food chains was less exhaustive than others, thus the Evaluators did not award the 'excellence' grade. The plans for disseminating the results are comprehensive but, to ensure optimal use of the project results, the widest possible dissemination outside the consortium to all categories of stakeholders in the EU should be aimed at. The socio-economic aspects that hamper the adoption of organic agriculture at farm level should also be comprehensively evaluated and the results appropriately disseminated. Mark: 4. 5 3. S&T excellence (Threshold 4/5; Weight 1)The proposal has very clear, well defined achievable objectives. The research will lead to new innovative technologies and systems for organic and low input production systems. It will also greatly improve our understanding of the differences between production systems. Many international research projects have attempted to identify the extent to which differences in production systems affect nutritional value, taste and safety of food. This proposal has the scientific rigour to provide meaningful information on this issue which has been lacking in the past. This research will be highly regarded internationally. One of the many strengths of the proposal is the inclusion of S&T horizontal activities which will look at environmental and sustainability audits, cost benefit analyses and socio-economic assessments as well as technology transfer. It is very important to take into account these horizontal factors when considering the whole system. Mark: 5 4. Quality of the consortium (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)The quality of the consortium is excellent. From the descriptions given it is clear the participants are well suited to the tasks and provide a complementary range of skills. Furthermore, the participants have a successful history of international cooperation so the chance of succeeding in this proposal is high. The SMEs are contributing a substantial amount of financial input into the project (approximately 0. 32 M euro) which indicates that they are fully committed to the proposal. Where partners have yet to be chosen, a description of their expected competencies has been provided. An open call will be made to select these partners. Mark: 5 5. Quality of the management (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1) The organisational structure of the project is well matched to its complexity and is of a very high standard. For example, the dedicated project management unit and use of standardised software will be important for managing a project of this size. The proposed consortium agreement is comprehensive and covers management of knowledge and intellectual property very well. Transparency of governance must be explicitly demonstrated. Mark: 4. 5 6. Mobilisation of the resources (Threshold 3/5; Weight 1)The project appears to be appropriately resourced in terms of personnel and has the critical mass to achieve its objectives in the context of both science and management. An excellent explanation is given of the costs of the project. The resources are very well integrated into a comprehensive programme. Some more information on how resources would be deployed over time during the project would have been beneficial. The proposer has taken care with this … … …Mark: 4. 5 …/… 2

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Foods From the Evaluation Summary Report 1. Relevance 5. 0 All the scientific, technical, socio-economic and policy objectives of the work programme. 2. Potential impact 4. 5 Very ambitious Bring together the multi-national multi-disciplinary team necessary 3. S&T excellence 5. 0 Very clear, well defined achievable objectives. New innovative technologies and systems 3

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Foods From the Evaluation Summary Report (continued) 4. Quality of the consortium 5. 0 Quality excellent. Participants well suited to tasks, complementary range of skills. 5. Quality of the management 4. 5 Organisational structure a very high standard. 6. Mobilisation of the resources 4. 5 Has the critical mass to achieve its objectives Appears to be appropriately resourced 4

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food Calendar of Negotiations 19 September (Coordinator + 2). => Commission Note for the file 22 September (Coordinator +4). => Two Commission Notes for the file => Coordinator’s Note - 31 queries/actions 9 October (Coordinator). . . 5

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food Main Recommendations in the ESR - “done” 1. "Some food chains less exhaustive than others" (“consider reducing the number of sectors that are worked on rather than along individual food chains. The most important criteria to consider … include critical mass of resources, potential impact and the applicability of results to other food chains. ”) 2. "Transparency of governance ” (“the Management Boards should include independent persons who do not have any financial interest in the decisions to be taken”) 3. "An open call will be made to select these partners" (“the SMEs are contributing a substantial amount of financial input into the project. . . which indicates that they are fully committed to the proposal. Where partners have yet to be chosen, a description of their expected competencies has been provided … open call”) 6

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food Main Recommendations in the ESR - subject of negotiations 1. “Project management. ” “project management activities … detail required. . . ”. 2. “Dissemination” “widest possible dissemination …” 3. “Ethical issues” “There are ethical issues with the proposal …” 4. “Information on resources”. ”Detailed budgets required …” 7

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food 1. Project management “detail should be required at negotiation”. => Reminder: NEGOTIATION GUIDANCE NOTES for Coordinators of INTEGRATED PROJECTS (IP) 8

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food 1. Project management NEGOTIATION GUIDANCE NOTES Review & Assessment Six Steps 1. Project goals 2. Project objective 3. Operational goals(results) 4. Baseline data 5. Measure of success 6. Make it happen NEGOTIATION GUIDANCE NOTES for Coordinators of INTEGRATED PROJECTS (IP) 9

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food 1. Project management NEGOTIATION GUIDANCE NOTES. “. . . detail should be required at negotiation” =>=> New text =>Chapter 2 in the Description of Work « Project Objectives» 10

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food 2. Widest dissemination “the widest possible dissemination outside the consortium to all categories of stakeholders in the EU should be aimed at. ” =>=> New activities and text Appendix 2 in the Description of Work Mandatory deliverable « Final Plan for using and disseminating knowledge » Chapter 6 in the Description of Work « Implementation Plan» 11

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food New! 45 day rule (and other questions on IPR, audits, dates … … …) =>=> New understanding (Coordinator’s Note for the File, with 31 points) Chapter 7 in the Description of Work « Project Management» 12

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food 3. Ethics “There are ethical issues with the proposal particularly with evaluating nutritional benefits of various food products (WP 2. 3. 1 and 2. 3. 2 page 33) …. To be considered by ethics panel” =>=> New activities and text Chapter 10 in the Description of Work « Ethical issues» 13

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food 4. Resources and Finances “Detailed budgets should be required at negotiation” =>=> Review of costs, Partner by Partner, New text Chapter 9 in the Description of Work « Project Resources and Budget» 14

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 506358 Quality. Low. Input. Food 4. Resources and Finances =>=>Review of costs, Partner by Partner. . . 1. (Actual ? ) 2. Economic ? 3. Necessary ? =>=>New text Chapter 9 in the Description of Work « Project Resources and Budget» 15

FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DG Research European Commission 50638 Quality. Low. Input. Food Summary and Latest news • Second round of negotiations, 9 October 1. 2. 3. 4. Project management. . . Dissemination. . . Ethics. . . Detailed budgets. . . • Negotiating team: D O’Connor, A Di Giulio, M Burioni, R Hardwick • Associated deskofficers: P. Ahle (DG AGRI), S Baardsen, J Claxton E Ceglarska, L Matthiessen, P Vossen • This is file 14786 f. ppt 16