Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Booklet of IWIM
Presentations
Abstracts
Table des matières INRA Meta-Programs: a tool for transdisciplinary Research ................................................................... 1
Introduction to IWIM workshop ......................................................................................................... 2
METASCREEN High-throughput functional exploration of microbial diversity ................................... 4
Eternal Rice: a case study of sustainable management of plant resistance ....................................... 7
LACCAVE: Wine industry and climate change, a systemic approach .................................................. 9
R2D2: a research network for analysing the efficiency of genomic selection .................................. 12
Towards sustainable diets: benefit-cost assessment of dietary recommendations ......................... 15
R2A2 network – A think tank dedicated to the antimicrobial crisis .................................................. 18
The CompAg project: Achieving agroecological transition through ecological compensation ........ 20
Governing by models: Land use models as tools for governing food security (GOSAMO) ............... 23
On “TRACKS”... 10 years after “Multidimensional analysis & support to Trajectories of conversion
to Organics” ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Findings from the synthesis report on metaprograms ..................................................................... 29
Findings from the IWIM Scientific Committee .................................................................................. 33
Agriculture and Agrifood Canada’s approach to interdisciplinary research programs ..................... 35
CAAS and its inter-displinary programs ............................................................................................. 38
Interdisciplinary @ Wageningen University & Research .................................................................. 39
Interdisciplinary @ UK ....................................................................................................................... 40
Sharing our understanding of research programs addressing grand challenges .................................. 41
Land sustainability and global change............................................................................................... 42
Towards a foresight on SDG compatible European food systems .................................................... 45
Rethinking the Meta-program tool ....................................................................................................... 48
From Meta- Programmes to Mission-Oriented Programmes? ......................................................... 49
Rethinking the MP tool: From Meta-programs to International programs? .................................... 51
From meta-programs to open innovation and participatory research ............................................. 53
New frontiers and new visions .............................................................................................................. 56
Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: transformation of agriculture and industries toward
sustainability ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Towards a Zero Plastic Bio-Economy ................................................................................................ 60
Innovations to integrate the environment and health in agri-food systems .................................... 62
Healthier and more sustainable food systems. From diagnosis to participatory design .................. 65
Knowledge-based agricultural and food policies .............................................................................. 68
Digital agriculture and emerging technologies ................................................................................. 71
Modeling future landscapes of adaptation to climatic and sanitary risks in European agriculture . 74
New frontiers and new visions through Meta-Programs ...................................................................... 76
New frontiers and new visions on adaptation of agriculture and forest to climate change,
ecosystem services and organic farming........................................................................................... 77
NEW FRONTIERS AND NEW VISIONS THROUGH META-PROGRAMs: GISA- and SMaCH-MP
perspective ........................................................................................................................................ 80
Roundtable on « Diets, Health and Food Security” ........................................................................... 82
NEW FRONTIERS AND NEW VISIONS THROUGH MP Selgen and MEM ............................................ 84
Findings from IWIM 2018 .................................................................................................................. 86
1
INRA Meta-Programs: a tool for transdisciplinary
Research
2
Introduction to IWIM workshop
Jean-François Soussana
INRA, Vice-Chair for international affairs, Paris, France.
As a public targeted research organisation, INRA mobilises a wide spectrum of disciplinary research
ranging from biological and ecological sciences, economic and social sciences, to the engineering
sciences and biotechnologies.
This broad range of disciplines is an opportunity to address the complex social and scientific challenges
facing food systems and bioeconomy at the start of the 21st century: achieving global food security in a
context of nutritional transition; transforming agricultural production systems to base performance on
agro-ecological solutions and digital farming; ensuring the provision of food that is healthy, sustainable
and accessible to all; developing the sustainable management of ecosystem services by adapting to
climate change; mastering new ‘-omic’ tools and their applications in biology.
This opportunity is contingent upon a skilful combination of disciplinary dynamics and interdisciplinary
approaches. This requires an epistemological effort to build common research goals, such as agro-
ecosystem services, or adaptation to climate change. INRA took up this challenge in 2010 with the
creation of its metaprograms: cross-cutting, cross-disciplinary programmes in synergy with discipline-
based initiatives led by the Institute’s research divisions. Through the MPs, collaborations between
social sciences divisions, the applied mathematics division and the natural sciences divisions have led
to interdisciplinary projects. Moreover, collaborations across natural science divisions were markedly
strengthened, e.g., between plant and animal genetics, plant and animal health, and agronomy and animal
husbandry.
The total number of papers published by INRA within the thematic fields of the MPs has increased by
250% over 2010-2016, whereas this increase was of 160% in the global scientific literature for the same
fields. Beyond scientific production, 8 categories of outputs by the MPs are identified: i)
interdisciplinary scientific community building; ii) benchmarking existing research and identifying
novel research directions; iii) expertise and foresight; iv) knowledge transfer and innovation; v) evidence
base for public policies; vi) international collaborations; vii) communication; and viii) training. Some
MPs were relatively more oriented towards knowledge transfer and innovation (e.g., GISA – Integrated
animal health management), others towards international collaborations (e.g., AAFCC – Adaptation of
agriculture and forest to climate change), or national expertise and stakeholder’s interaction (e.g.,
EcoServ – Practices and services of anthropized ecosystems). Several large collaborative research
projects supported by external funding from various sources (European Commission, French national
agency for research, foundations, private sector) were launched after being incubated by the MPs.
9 MPs were launched successively in 2011 (3 MPs), 2013 (3 MPs), 2015 (2 MPs) and 2018 (by
transforming an existing program, OF&F – Organic Food and Farming, into an MP) and one MP
(GloFoodS, on Global Food Security) is shared with CIRAD. In total, MPs have benefited from a total
direct funding by INRA of 400-500 k€ per year and per MP, which translates in 2 to 2.5 M€ per year
and per MP in terms of full costs (salaries of permanent staff included), including co-funding for up to
100 PhD grants. In addition, since 2011, 86 junior scientists and engineers were recruited by INRA as
permanent staff (23% of the total tenure-track recruitments) based on profiles initially provided by the
MPs. INRA’s MPs have launched close to 300 research projects. These projects are estimated to have
published so far ca. 2,000 indexed peer-reviewed papers, including a significant number in high-impact
multidisciplinary journals. Despite some limitations, MPs have allowed INRA to strengthen
3
interdisciplinary research and pathways to impact in highly relevant fields for major societal challenges,
while fostering international collaborations.
After several years of operation, INRA has launched a process of review and revision of this approach
to bring it the necessary evolutions. The 2018 International Workshop on INRA’s Meta-Programs
(IWIM), held in Versailles on February 1-2, has been prepared through a review process by an
international panel of invited scientific experts. This review was based on self-assessment reports
prepared by each MP and on a synthesis of the individual reports. 130 participants from 15 countries
attended IWIM 2018, most of them being scientific experts from disciplines supporting INRA MPs.
During IWIM 2018, after an introduction by the French ministry for research, a review of the
advancement of INRA’s MPs was provided by presenting: i) highlights from each MP, ii) a summary
of the self-assessment reports and iii) the conclusions of the international assessment panel. These
presentations helped to share the results of the meta-programs and parallel sessions allowed to reflect
on developments and perspectives on various aspects such as internationalization, innovation and
stakeholder dialog.
This international workshop allowed to reflect on similar initiatives taken by large research
organizations in other countries (Canada, China, the Netherlands and UK) and to discuss new research
needs to face the global challenges of agriculture, the environment and food. A series of key-note
lectures by international experts allowed to introduce some of the main challenges ahead and to provide
some novel research perspectives on how to answer these challenges. The main perspectives for
European and for international research and impact in these fields were addressed by the European
Commission and by the FAO before a conclusive address by the President and CEO of INRA.
4
METASCREEN
High-throughput functional exploration of microbial diversity
Sophie Bozonnet1, Roland Marmeisse2, Diego Morgavi3, Marion Leclerc4, Stephane Uroz5, Alain
Brauman6, Guillermina Hernandez-Raquet1, Muriel Mercier-Bonin4, Claire Dumon1, Elisabeth Laville1,
Sandra Pizzut-Serin1, Sophie Duquesne1, Sandrine Laguerre1, Simon Ladevèze1, Lisa Ufarté1,
Alexandre David4, Gregory Arnal1, Adèle Lazuka1, Laurence Tarquis1, Marie-Pierre Duviau1, Joël
Doré4, Patricia Luis2, Laetitia Bernard6, and Gabrielle Potocki-Veronese*1.
1 LISBP, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INRA, INSA, Toulouse, France 2 UMR INRA, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France 3INRA, UMR 1213 Herbivores, Saint-Genès Champanelle, France 4 Micalis Institute, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France 5 UMR1136 INRA/University of Lorraine “Tree-Microbe Interactions” (IAM), Labex ARBRE,
Champenoux, France 6 Laboratoire de Microbiologie ORSTOM, Université de Provence, Marseille, France
Microbial communities are ubiquitous in the biosphere, and play key roles in plant and animal health,
food security and quality, and ecosystem remediation. However, most of the microbial species which
compose these ecosystems are uncultured and, thus, difficult to study. In the MEM
metaprogram_Metascreen project, we circumvented the barrier of cultivation by using metagenomics
and metatranscriptomics (the genomic/transcriptomic analysis of a population of microbes), in order to
explore the hidden prokaryotic and eukaryotic fractions of various microbial communities. The targeted
microbiota are representative of enzyme-rich and relevant environments, i.e. human gut, bovine rumen,
insect gut and soil microbial communities. The Metascreen objectives were to decipher the functions of
specific microorganisms, from the ecosystemic to the molecular levels, and to create a large collection
of catalytic tools of biotechnological interest. The goal was, ultimately, to understand how ecosystems
operate and also to exploit interesting microbial functions ex vivo, for the development of enzyme-based
processes and synthetic biology. In order to meet these challenges, the Metascreen consortium combined
the expertise of biochemists, microbiologists and microbial ecologists from six INRA divisions, who
received in total 270 k€.
Metascreen allowed a steep increase in activity-based functional metagenomics. A very large battery of
functional screens (Larraufie et al., 2015; Ufarté et al., 2015a, 2015b; Tauzin et al., 2017) was developed
on our high-throughput screening platform ICEO, which is now part of the European infrastructure
IBISBA project (H2020 INFRAIA). We also created and organized metagenomic libraries from the four
targeted ecosystems, covering 6 Gbp of DNA (the equivalent of 2,000 bacterial genomes), and
evidenced important differences in the screening effort required depending on the considered
environment.
These developments led to the discovery of a battery of new tools for biorefineries, synthetic biology,
environmental and health industries. We indeed designed new microbial consortia (Lazuka et al., 2015,
2017) and enzymatic cocktails (Arnal et al., 2015) to improve plant cell wall degradation for the
biorefinery industry. This was done by combining different metabolic pathways, issued from insect and
5
bovine rumen gut bacteria, or from soil fungi (Bragalini et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2016; Marmeisse et
al., 2017). We also discovered new families of enzymes that can be used for bioremediation, in particular
for the degradation of pesticides and polyurethane foams (Ufarté et al., 2015c, 2017). From soil bacteria,
we identified a novel mechanism of quorum sensing signal communication and degradation (Torres et
al., 2017). In addition, we deciphered the mechanisms of biofilm formation and mucin adhesion in the
human gut microbiota, and discovered a novel enzyme family involved in the degradation of the
intestinal mucus, which could contribute to the alteration of the intestinal barrier for patients suffering
from inflammatory bowel diseases (Ladevèze et al., 2013, 2015, 2016). By exploiting this enzymatic
function in vitro, we also developed a new process of conversion of plant cell wall substrates into human
oligosaccharides, of which the price exceeds 10 k€/mg (Potocki-Veronese et al., 2013).
Overall this project led to one European patent and to 17 collaborative papers published in high-ranked
journals. Thanks to this increased visibility, we expanded our network in functional metagenomics,
especially in Europe, Canada and Australia. A direct consequence of Metascreen is the participation, as
workpackage leaders or coordinators, in 12 new industrial, national and international projects (for a total
of 3.2 M€ for INRA partners), in which we are exploiting our generic functional screening assays, and/or
the collection of Metascreen enzymes for biotechnological applications.
Thanks to the developments made in Metascreen and in two running H2020 projects (Catsys-H2020-
MSCA-IF-2015 and Metafluidics-H2020-LEIT-BIO-2015, obtained thanks to the expertise acquired in
Metascreen), we open a new area in functional metagenomics. We integrated microfluidics to
metagenomics, and designed several ultra-high-throughput workflows allowing us to suppress the limits
in terms of throughput, cost and library size (Colin et al., 2015, Dagkesamanskaya et al., 2018). We are
now able to explore, extremely quickly, the vast world of still unknown bacterial, fungal and viral
functions to boost the development of bioeconomy.
References
Arnal G, Bastien G, Monties N, Abot A, Leberre V, Bozonnet S, O’Donohue M and Dumon C (2015) Investigating
the function of an arabinan utilization locus isolated from a termite gut community. Applied and environmental
microbiology 81(1), 31-39.
Bragalini C, Ribière C, Parisot N, Vallon L, Prudent E, Peyretaillade E, Girlanda M, Peyret P, Marmeisse R, Luis
P (2014) Solution hybrid selection capture for the recovery of functional full-length eukaryotic cDNAs from
complex environmental samples. DNA Research 21(6), 685-694.
Colin PY, Kintses B, Gielen F, Miton CM, Fischer G, Mohamed MF, Hyvönen M, Morgavi DP, Janssen DB,
Hollfelder F (2015) Ultrahigh-throughput discovery of promiscuous enzymes by picodroplet functional
metagenomics. Nature communications 6, 10008.
Dagkesamanskaya A, Langer K, Tauzin A, Rouzeau C, Lestrade D, Potocki-Veronese G, Boitard L, Bibette J,
Baudry J, Pompon D, Anton-Leberre V (2018) Use of photoswitchable Fluorescent Proteins for droplet-based
microfluidic screening. Journal of Microbiological Methods. In press.
Larraufie P, de Wouters T, Potocki-Veronese G, Blottière HM, Doré J (2014). Functional metagenomics to
decipher food-microbe-host crosstalk. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 74 (1), 14.
Ladeveze S, Tarquis L, Cecchini D, Bercovici J, Andre I, Topham C, Morel S, Laville E, Monsan P, Lombard V,
Henrissat B, Potocki-Veronese G (2013) Role of Glycoside Phosphorylases in Mannose Foraging by Human Gut
Bacteria. Journal of Biological Chemistry 288 (45), 32370-32383.
6
Ladeveze S, Cioci G, Roblin P, Mourey L, Tranier S, Potocki-Veronese G (2015) Structural bases for N-glycan
processing by mannoside phosphorylase. Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography 71 (6),
1335-46.
Ladeveze S, Laville E, Despres J, Mosoni P, Potocki Veronese G (2016) Mannoside recognition and degradation
by bacteria. Biological Reviews 92(4), 1969-1990.
Lazuka A, Auer L, Bozonnet S, Morgavi DP, O’Donohue MJ, Hernandez-Raquet G (2015). Efficient anaerobic
transformation of raw wheat straw by a robust cow rumen-derived microbial consortium. Bioresource Technology
196, 241-249.
Lazuka A, Roland C, Barakat A, Guillon F, O'Donohue M, Hernandez Raquet G (2017) Ecofriendly lignocellulose
pretreatment to enhance the carboxylate production of a rumen-derived microbial consortium. Bioresource
Technology 236, 225-233.
Marmeisse R, Kellner H, Fraissinet-Tachet L, Luis P (2017) Discovering Protein-Coding Genes from the
Environment: Time for the Eukaryotes? Trends in Biotechnology 35:824-835.
Potocki-Veronese G, Ladeveze S, Tarquis L, Henrissat B, Monsan P, Laville E (2013) Use of specific glycoside
phosphorylases for the implementation of phosphorolysis or reverse phosphorolysis reactions. European patent
filed by Toulouse Tech Transfert, N° EP 13306108.5. Mondial extension in 2014, N° PCT/EP2014/066565.
Tauzin A, Laville E, Cecchini D, Blottiere H, Leclerc M, Dore J, Potocki-Veronese G (2017) Human gut
metagenomics: success and limits of the activity-based approaches. In ‘Functional Metagenomics: Tools and
Applications’, (Ed. Springer, Cham) pp. 161-178.
Torres M, Uroz S, Salto R, Fauchery L, Quesada E, Llamas I (2017) HqiA, a novel quorum-quenching enzyme
which expands the AHL lactonase family. Scientific reports, 7(1), 943.
Ufarté L, Potocki-Veronese G, Laville E (2015a). Discovery of new protein families and functions: new challenges
in functional metagenomics for biotechnologies and microbial ecology. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 563.
Ufarté L, Bozonnet S, Laville E, Cecchini DA, Pizzut-Serin S, Jacquiod S, Demanèche S, Simonet P, Franqueville
L, Potocki-Veronese G (2015b) Functional metagenomics: construction and high-throughput screening of fosmid
libraries for discovery of novel carbohydrate-active enzymes. In ‘Microbial Environmental Genomics (Methods
in Molecular Biology)’ pp. 257-271 (Humana Press, New York, NY).
Ufarté L, Laville E, Duquesne S, Potocki-Véronèse G (2015c) Metagenomics for the discovery of pollutant
degrading enzymes. Biotechnology advances 33(8), 1845-1854.
Ufarté L, Laville E, Duquesne S, Morgavi D, Robe P, Klopp C, Rizzo A, Pizzut-Serin S, Potocki-Veronese G
(2017) Discovery of carbamate degrading enzymes by functional metagenomics. PloS one 12(12), e0189201.
Yadav RK, Bragalini C, Fraissinet-Tachet L, Marmeisse R, Luis P (2016) Metatranscriptomics of Soil Eukaryotic
Communities. Methods in Molecular Biology 1399, 273-287.
7
Eternal Rice: a case study of sustainable management of plant resistance
J Liao1, H Huang1, I Meusnier2, X He1, D Tharreau2, H Adreit2, , T Kroj2, J Papaix3, S Soubeyrand3, F
Fabre4, T Dedeurwaerdere6, F Coleno5, M Hannachi5, E Fournier2, JB Morel2*
1 Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China 2 UMR BGPI (INRA/CIRAD/SupAgro), Montpellier, France 3 UR BIOSP (INRA), Avignon, France 4 UMR SAVE (INRA/Bordeaux Sciences Agro/ISVV), Bordeaux, France 5 UMR SADAPT (INRA/AgroParisTech), Paris et Grignon, France 6 BIOGOV, Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium
Context and objectives of the project
One challenge to reach durability of plant disease resistance is to predict the evolution of a pathogen in
spatially and temporarily heterogeneous landscapes. Important insights can be gained by studying
existing sustainable systems, like the traditional rice agrosystem of the Yuan Yang Terraces (YYT) in
China. In YYT, more than 40 traditional rice varieties have been grown for centuries without noticeable
erosion of resistance to the blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. The main objectives of the “Riz Eternel”
project was to test the hypothesis that the interaction between diversity and spatio-temporal arrangement
of varieties prevents the development of large epidemics of M. oryzae.
Initial need for multidisciplinarity research
This project included three main tasks:
1. Evaluating the diversity of rice and M. oryzae and their interactions in the system.
2. Understanding the rules of management of cultivated biodiversity by local farmers.
3. Modelling the system to determine the key parameters of resistance durability.
This could only be achieved through a multi-disciplinary project combining population biology,
genetics, socio-economic surveys and modeling of epidemics.
Main scientific results obtained
In YYT, the sympatric cultivation of japonica and indica rice varieties with different immune
systems leads to local adaptation of M. oryzae populations (Liao et al, eLIFE 2016).
In YYT, rice traditional varieties are freely exchanged within villages, producing spatial and
temporal diversity. The neutral genetic diversity as well as functional diversity for resistance to
M. oryzae is elevated within and among traditional rice varieties. Altogether, this generates a
highly heterogeneous landscape for M. oryzae in space and time. Socio-economic surveys
allowed the building of a model to simulate allocation of varieties.
The absence of co-structure between plant and M. oryzae genetic diversities suggests that M.
oryzae is maladapted in YYT, providing a mechanism for explaining sustainability.
Socio-economic surveys allowed the identification of a tipping-point, i.e. a limit in the surface
planted with a newly introduced modern variety upon which the economic opportunities are
negatively counter-balanced by plant health problems. Combining socio-economic approaches
8
and molecular genetics, we demonstrated that shrinking of rice cultivated diversity destabilizes
the co-evolutionary equilibrium and favors epidemics.
Main outputs and post-project developments, partnership developed (or expected for ongoing
projects)
Translation of knowledge to wheat cultivation in France (funded CASDAR project)
Modelling of M. oryzae epidemics in YYT landscape taking into account different proportions
of traditional versus modern varieties in the landscape
Joint Laboratory on crop mixtures (PLANTOMIX) under development with YAU
New collaboration opportunities (YAU, BGI-China; The Sainsbury Laboratory-UK; LMI-RICE
2-Vietnam).
9
LACCAVE: Wine industry and climate change, a systemic approach
Nathalie Ollat1 and Jean-Marc Touzard2
1 UMR EGFV, Bordeaux Sciences Agro-INRA-Bordeaux University, ISVV, 210 chemin de Leysotte,
33882 Villenave d’Ornon. [email protected], https://www6.laccave.fr 2 UMR Innovation, CIRAD-INRA-Montpellier SupAgro,2 place Viala, 34060 Montpellier jean-
Abstract
LACCAVE was launched within ACCAF metaprogram as a national scientific network aiming at
studying and providing knowledges and tools for the adaptation of the French wine industry to climate
change. After a brief description of LACCAVE consortium and general objectives, this note illustrates
the systemic approach of adaptation developed, by focusing on one main issue related to climate change
“how to cope with drought in a sustainable way”.
Keywords
Grapevine, drought adaptation, climate change, strategic choices, adapted varieties.
Considering the economic and cultural place of the wine industry in France, the LACCAVE
project was launched in the frame of Metaprogram ACCAF as a systemic and interdisciplinary approach
to study the impacts of climate change and define some adaptation strategies for this sector. Climatic
conditions, both from current and previous years, have a large impact on grape production and wine
quality, which is already known as the “millesime effect”. Vineyard locations, growing practices and
annual calendar of phenological stages are also considered as good markers of climatic conditions.
Indeed, harvest dates were used to reconstruct climates from the past in several wine areas (Garcia de
Cortazar-Atauri et al., 2010). In addition, grapevine is a perennial plant, but fruits and wine are produced
annually. Consequently, adaptation strategies can combine both short and long term changes. Finally,
in more than 70% of French vineyard areas, wines are produced under the rules of Protected
Geographical Indications (PGI) which define collectively where and how vineyards can be grown and
wines can be elaborated. This system induces very specific conditions to adopt innovations and to
manage adaptation. All together these specificities characterize the wine sector as a model to study
adaptation to climate change.
LACCAVE adopted a systemic description of the industry as a combination of bio-physical
components considered at local scale and highly impacted by climate changes, technical components
from the grape growing and wine making systems, marketing components and regulation and
organizational policies components along the value chain (Ollat et al., 2016). Each component included
also a set of levers which could be mobilised to define adaptation strategies. A common definition of
adaptation was chosen as “the set of actions and processes which societies must utilize to limit the
negative impacts of changes and maximize their beneficial effects” (Hallegate et al., 2011). The overall
objective of LACCAVE was to design adaptation strategies at local scale, combining technological,
spatial and organisational changes, based on expert and participative approaches. The national
consortium established involved about 90 scientists and students from 23 laboratories from INRA,
CNRS and two universities, with a large range of skills including climatologists, geneticists, plant
10
physiologists, pathologists, agronomists, oenologists, human science scientists, mathematicians and data
managers and economists. Seven pH-D theses were successfully defended. The consortium defines the
following operational goals which were i) to establish a network in order to coordinate the already
existing studies, ii) to perform new specific studies with both disciplinary and interdisciplinary
approaches, iii) to share knowledge about impacts and adaptation, iv) to raise the awareness of the
industry and to transfer our collective knowledge to the stakeholders, and v) to elaborate a foresight
exercise as a tool for stakeholders to define their own adaptation strategies.
Among others, increased drought problems are a major concern for the industry, especially in
the Mediterranean vineyards. Even though grapevine is considered as highly adapted to dry
environments, yield is highly related to water status and quality may be negatively affected severe
drought. Consequently, one question addressed to LACCAVE was “how to cope with increasing
drought, in a sustainable way?”. Using simulated climatic data from Meteo-France for the GIEC scenario
A2, Lebon and Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri (2014) computed several agro-climatic indices related to
vineyard water status in 3 different zones of Languedoc-Roussillon region for the near and far future.
Even with large uncertainties for precipitation, and some variability among zones, evapotranspiration,
duration and intensity of drought might increase with a high probability during the growth cycle.
However, as a consequence of earlier ripening due to increased temperatures, average drought intensity
during the ripening period would not be significantly affected. Nevertheless, these more stress-full
conditions over the season will require an adaptation of growing practices in order to maintain vineyard
sustainability in these regions. Several technical levers, as irrigation, soil management, training systems
and more adapted plant material may be considered, and several strategies may be designed according
to additional factors. Irrigation is a simple and fairly easy solution to implement at short term if water is
available. According to Ojeda et al. (2017), the amount of additional water has to be strictly monitored
to adjust the plant water status to the levels defined according to the grapevine stage and the targeted
quality. Even if the use of alternative source of water is promising, irrigation won’t probably be possible
everywhere, is expensive both at collective and individual levels, and may become a risky strategy when
water resources will become limiting. At medium and long terms, and taking into account the life cycle
of a vineyard, more sustainable strategies as training systems and more adapted plant material, varieties
and rootstocks, need to be considered seriously. In the frame of LACCAVE, Aude Coupel-Ledru studied
the genetic architecture of grapevine responses to drought. Using a combination of quantitative genetics
and physiological approaches, as well as the PhenoArch phenotyping platform and vineyard
experiments, she detected several quantitative traits loci underlying traits as plant transpiration and
hydraulic conductivity, water use efficiency and night transpiration. Among the various traits studied,
night transpiration was demonstrated as a good marker of high water use efficiency (Coupel-Ledru et
al., 2014, 2016). This result is an important piece of knowledge to select more adapted varieties. These
varieties may already exist among Vitis vinifera genetic diversity and should now be characterized for
this trait. New varieties highly adapted to drought may also be bred to combine several performances as
resistance to diseases and resilience to high temperature. However, any technical solutions, as the release
of new varieties or growing practices, should be experimented in commercial conditions to evaluate
their impacts on the whole agronomical performances of the vineyard, and from an oenological point of
view with a special interest to yield and wine quality. Conditions of acceptance in PGI areas (AOP or
IGP labels) should also been studied. Last but not least, conditions of acceptance by growers, other
actors of the industry and consumers have to be taken into considerations as shown by several studies
from LACCAVE project (Neethling et al., 2017; Fuentes-Espinosa et al., 2017).
Adaptation to climate change of the French wine industry will involve strategic choices based
on a combination of changes at several scales from the individual plot to the national level. These choices
may be difficult to do, taking into account all the actual other challenges for this sector. LACCAVE was
11
successful to raise the awareness of the industry and provided a foresight exercise as a tool to design its
own strategies plans both at local and national scales (Aigrain et al., 2017). Perspectives involve
participative approaches to support the actors to implement the required evolutions.
References
Aigrain P, Bois B, Brugière F, Duchêne E, Garcia de Cortazar Atauri I, Gautier J, Giraud-Héraud E, Hannin H,
Ollat N, Touzard JM (2017) From scenarios to pathways: lessons from a foresight study on the French wine
industry under climate change. In:ClimWine2016 Proceedings. Vigne et Vin Publications Internationales,
Bordeaux, pp 253-262.
Coupel-Ledru A, Lebon E, Christophe A, Doligez A, Cabrera-Bosquet L, Péchier P, Hamard P, This P, Simonneau
T (2014). Genetic variation in a grapevine progeny (Vitis vinifera L. cvs Grenache×Syrah) reveals inconsistencies
between maintenance of daytime leaf water potential and response of transpiration rate under drought. J. Exp. Bot
65: 6205–6218
Coupel-Ledru A, Lebon E, Christophe A, Gallo A, Gago P, Pantin F, Doligez A, Simonneau T (2016) Reduced
nighttime transpiration is a relevant breeding target for high water-use efficiency in grapevine. PNAS 113:8963-
8968
Fuentes-Espinoza A, Pérès S, Pons A, Tempère S, Samson A, Escudier JL, Darriet P, Giraud-Héraud E (2017)
Global Warming and oenological strategies : How to anticipate consumer behavior? In: ClimWine2016
Proceedings. Vigne et Vin Publications Internationales, Bordeaux, pp 235-252.
Cortázar-Atauri IGd, Daux V, Garnier E, Yiou P, Viovy N, Seguin B, Boursiquot JM, Parker AK, Leeuwen Cv,
Chuine I (2010) Climate reconstructions from grape harvest dates: Methodology and uncertainties. The Holocene
20:599-608
Hallegate S, Lecocq F, de Perthuis C (2011) Designing climate change adaptation policies - An economic
framework. Policy Research Working Paper 5568, The World Bank.
Lebon E, Garcia de Cortazar Atauri I (2014) Dans un contexte de changement climatique, quels sont les impacts
de la sécheresse sur la vigne et sur le devenir des vignobles ? L'exemple du Languedoc. Viticulture et stress
hydrique - Carrefours de l'Innovation Agronomique. INRA, Montpellier, pp 1-12
Neethling E, Petitjean T, Quénol H, Barbeau G (2017) Assessing local climate vulnerability and winegrowers’
adaptive processes in the context of climate change. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 22(5), 777-803.
Ojeda H, Saurin N, Alvarez Gei S, Symoneaux R, Coulon-Leroy C (2017) Precision irrigation of grapevines:
methods, tools and strategies to maximize the quality and yield of the harvest and ensure water conservation in a
context of climate change. Consumer perception. In: ClimWine201 Proceedings. Vigne et Vin Publications
Internationales, Bordeaux, pp 253-262.
Ollat N, Touzard J-M, Van Leeuwen C (2016) Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations: New Challenges for the
Wine Industry. Journal of Wine Economics 11:139-149
12
R2D2: a research network for analysing the efficiency of genomic selection
Aline Fugeray-Scarbel1, Bruno Goffinet2, Stéphane Lemarié1, Laurence Moreau3, Christèle Robert-
Granié2
1 UMR GAEL, Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRA, CNRS, Grenoble INP, 38000 Grenoble, France 2 UMR1388 GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, INRA, ENVT, Castanet Tolosan, France 3 UMR Génétique Quantitative et Evolution, Le Moulon, Ferme du Moulon, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Abstract
Genetic selection is organized in many different ways depending on the animal or plant species and the
economic context. Genomic selection has been first implemented for some species (ex: dairy cattle,
Lacaune dairy sheep). However, it is expected that the interest and the efficient ways for implementing
genomic selection in other species are quite different. R2D2 is a network of researchers initiated in 2013
with the objective share knowledge about methodological issues related to the genetic and economic
efficiency of genomic selection for a wide range of about 20 animal and vegetal species.
Keywords
Quantitative Genetics, Selection Genomic Methodology, Economic Efficiency, Animal and vegetal
species, Impact of Innovation
Introduction
Genomic selection is a generic breeding approach that can be implemented in multiple species of
agronomical interest. On a scientific ground, it raises several technological and methodological issues
that are transversal among species. More precisely, these transversal questions cover: the design of the
DNA chips, the storage for genotyping and phenotyping data, the statistical methods for analysing these
data (e.g. analysing the linkage disequilibrium, establishing the prediction equation), the way to analyse
the efficiency of genomic selection taking into account the cost of genotyping in order to best optimize
its integration in breeding schemes. These multiple transversal stakes call for an effort to
decompartmentalize the scientific communities that are related to crop, animal or tree breeding.
Promoting transversal research is also a very good opportunity for « minor » species to benefit from the
scientific developments made for « major » species. These observations advocate a strategy of
transversal approach among species, which was one major objective of the SELGEN Metaprogram of
INRA and the R2D2 research network is a good illustration of this strategy.
The objectives of R2D2 and its modus operandi
The more precise objective of R2D2 is to address issues related to the efficiency of genomic selection
on two grounds. The first one is related to the statistical efficiency (R2): how efficient/accurate is the
prediction of genetic value based on genotyping information, and how can we improve this efficiency?
The second ground is related to the economic efficiency (D2): for a given research effort and knowing
13
costs related to genetic selection, what is the efficiency of genomic selection compared to conventional
selection based only on phenotypes and pedigree (if known) information and what is the best way to
integrate genomic selection in breeding schemes?
The R2D2 research network gathers 60 researchers and PhD students specialized in quantitative genetics
for 20 different species (ruminants, pig, poultry, horse, fish, field and vegetable crops, forest and fruit
trees, vine, fodder crops, peas, rice, …). Two economists also participate in this network. The majority
of participants are from INRA but several researchers from other organizations (e.g. CIRAD,
IFREMER) also participate in this network. The network meets twice a year since 2013, and each time
during three days. Each researcher was welcome to present one of his current research related to the
analysis of the efficiency of genomic selection for the species he/she is specialized in. An important
effort was also devoted to the presentation of the general objectives and organizations of selection for
each of the species. The number of participants during the meeting was generally between 20 and 30
and has been increasing over time, as well as the range of species covered by the network. Some
researchers associated to this network were not able to participate to the meeting but benefited from the
archives of all the presentations that are recorded in a INRA shared space R2D2 is open of new
researchers, anyone wishing to be informed of this project can request to join the mailing list
([email protected]) and have access to the shared space.
Analysing the accuracy of genomic prediction among species
The interest of genomic selection depends crucially on the accuracy of the predictions that can be made
on the basis of genomic information. Simple formulas to obtain the accuracy of genomic estimated
breeding values (GEBV) were proposed in the literature, based on a number of simplifying hypotheses
(absence of linkage disequilibrium and linkage between loci, a population with unrelated individuals,
and all genetic variation of the trait explained by the genotyped loci). Our first step was to analyze these
models (and their properties), and better share knowledge, whatever the animal or plant kingdom they
have been developed for. Different methods for computing the accuracy of GEBV were analyzed and
we have determined what is sufficiently stabilized to be integrated in the model for calculating genetic
gain. The relative efficiency of these methods depends on the genetic architecture of traits under
selection in the population (number and effects of the genes involved). It was therefore necessary to
analyze the relevance of these approaches for different genomic selection methods, and develop
additional methods for other contexts (eg. multi / crossed populations). We have proposed a new
framework to derive equations that predict the accuracy of GEBV based on the size of the reference
population, the heritability of and number of QTL controlling the quantitative trait, a population with
related individuals. We are interested in the expectation of the accuracy of GEBV, before implementing
possible genotyping and selection schemes, as a tool for optimizing resources. Accuracy and bias of
genomic selection on real data of our different species (with big or small populations, different genetic
structure of the reference population, various genotyping chips…) have been discussed and compared
with several genomic methods, models and tools.
Several selection scheme modelling works have been carried out in order to evaluate the interest of
genomic selection and optimize its implementation. This work is based on stochastic simulations or
deterministic modelling. Stochastic population simulations in selection allow integrating a large number
of parameters but require large computing times which limits the number of tested scenarios and the
possibility to really optimize breeding schemes. Deterministic approaches are faster but are based on
simplifying assumptions, notably on the expected accuracy of predictions of genetic values. These two
approaches are therefore complementary. One strategy would be to combine both to benefit from the
qualities of both analytical models (because of their simplicity of implementation) and simulation
models (which enable to deal with complex situations). The costs will be integrated into this modelling
14
in order to optimize the implementation of genomic selection and compare its benefits with existing
schemes. We first did a review of simulation approaches already done in the literature and by the project
partners with the objective of sharing information, expertize and potentially simulation codes.
Analysing the economic efficiency of genomic prediction among species
Genomic selection has already been implemented in dairy cattle for male selection. Its main interest in
this case is to speed up the selection cycle by enabling the selection of very young animals. This interest
compensates for the possible quality loss in the prediction of the genetic value when based on genomic
information rather than phenotypic information. When reviewing other species of agronomical interest,
we observed that the use of genomic information can improve selection efficiency but for various
reasons that may differ from the dairy cattle case. Genomic selection enables to relax some of the
biological and economic constraints that limit conventional breeding schemes. These constraints differ
among species, and consequently, the reason for the interest of genomic selection also varies among
species.
An important work has been carried on in the R2D2 project to identify the basic strategies for
implementing genomic selection. Each basic strategy reflects one specific interest of genomic selection
and they can possibly be combined. These strategies can be summarized as follow:
Improving the quality of the prediction of the selection candidates’ genetic value, by combining
phenotyping and genotyping.
Saving on phenotyping cost by making a pre-screening on the selection candidates or by only
using genomic predictions. These savings enable one to increase the selection intensity and/or
to speed up breeding cycles as for dairy cattle.
Improving the choice of the parents that are crossed to generate new candidates.
Better managing the genetic diversity in the selection scheme, which leads to higher expected
genetic progress in the medium or long term.
The main interest of this R2D2 network is to analyse the interest of each of these strategies for such a
large panel of species, and this has never been done in the literature.
On the side of this analysis, R2D2 also enable establishing collaborations between geneticists and
economists in order to better take into account the cost of genotyping in the comparison of different
selection schemes.
Conclusion
R2D2, started in 2013, has initiated collaborations that did not exist before, between scientists working
on different species but wishing to answer common questions on the relevance of genomic selection.
This project has allowed collectively building a typology of the obstacles and challenges encountered
in the implementation of genomic selection in the different studied species. It has also strengthened links
between animal and plant geneticists, interested economists in animal issues and helped pool
development efforts on genomic selection.
15
Towards sustainable diets: benefit-cost assessment of dietary
recommendations
Xavier Irz1, Pascal Leroy2, Vincent Réquillart3, Louis-Georges Soler4
1 LUKE Natural Resources Institute Finland, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland
([email protected]) 2 INRA Aliss, 65 Boulevard de Brandebourg, 94205 Ivry-sur-Seine, France ([email protected]) 3 Toulouse School of Economics (GREMAQ-INRA), Université Toulouse 1 – Capitole, Manufacture
des Tabacs, 21 Allée de Brienne, 31000 Toulouse, France ([email protected]) 4 INRA Aliss, 65 Boulevard de Brandebourg, 94205 Ivry-sur-Seine, France (louis-
Food consumption patterns observed in developed countries raise two main types of concerns. First,
food production, distribution and consumption accounts for 15 to 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions
(GHGEs), thus contributing significantly to climate change (Esnouf et al., 2013). For this reason, dietary
changes are often considered an important tool for climate change mitigation. In high-income countries,
many reports recommend promotion of new consumption patterns requiring reductions in meat and dairy
consumption and the substitution of plant-based products for animal products.
Second, unhealthy diets, in association with physical inactivity, are risks factors for various chronic
diseases, including obesity, strokes, diabetes, and some types of cancers (World Health Organization,
2003). This statement has led many public health agencies to set up prevention policies based on healthy-
eating recommendations and information campaigns.
However, health and environmental issues need to be tackled together to ensure consistency of the
dietary advice delivered to consumers. Although the convergence of health and environmental
objectives is not systematic (Vieux et al., 2012 & 2013; Masset et al., 2014), it is now widely accepted
that a reduction in meat consumption and the shift toward plant-based diets would have a favorable
effect on both environment and health (Aston et al., 2012; Scarborough et al., 2012).
Whether for health or environmental reasons, consumers are thus increasingly encouraged to choose
foods in order to comply with a large range of dietary recommendations. Education, information
campaigns and food labelling measures are implemented in order to promote adoption of those
recommendations. However, a lot of research shows that interventions tend to raise consumers’
awareness of nutritional issues without having a large impact on behaviors.
If several reasons can be proposed to explain the difficulties in changing behaviors, one is related to the
“taste cost” of change, that is, the utility loss induced by a dietary change that brings a new balance
between long-term health or environmental goals and short-term pleasure and hedonistic rewards
(Réquillart et Soler, 2014). In other words, the difficulties in complying with dietary recommendations
are likely due to the lack of compatibility of consumers’ preferences with the diets that they would have
to adopt in order to comply with these recommendations. An important issue is then to determine
sustainable diets complying with health and environmental recommendations and compatible, as much
as possible, with consumer preferences. In other words, the challenge is to identify dietary
recommendations with the potential to improve health and environment but generating the smallest
“taste costs” for consumers.
16
To take into account these taste costs, a research project conducted in the framework of the Metaprogram
DiD’it (Irz et al., 2015 XXX) aimed at developing a new analytical framework which builds on the
microeconomic theory of the consumer under rationing, with the goal of identifying diets compatible
with both dietary recommendations and consumer preferences. This framework is built to estimate the
substitutions, and overall changes in diet, that would take place if consumers complied with these
recommendations. Such a framework is used to assess the difficulty of achieving a given
recommendation by identifying the magnitude and nature of the required substitutions in consumption.
It also provides the basis for measuring the “taste cost” of complying with a particular nutritional dietary
norm, which can then be used in conventional cost-benefit analysis.
This general framework was used to empirically estimate the health, environmental and welfare impacts
of the adoption of various dietary guidelines by consumers. We considered a set of nutrient-based (for
instance related to fat, salt, or sugar intakes), food-based (for instance related to F&V, meat, or soft-
drinks intakes), and environmentally-based (related to carbon footprints of diets) dietary
recommendations, determine the substitutions within the consumers’ diet induced by their adoption, and
estimate the loss of welfare induced by these changes. To deal with the health issue, we matched the
economic model with an epidemiological one, and assessed the health impacts of diet changes in terms
of the prevalence of chronic diseases and associated mortality. Similarly, to deal with the environmental
issue, we estimated the effects of the dietary changes on environmental indicators. By combining
consumers’ taste costs with health and environmental effects, we finally developed a cost-effectiveness
analysis of dietary recommendations.
The results confirm the need to consider the effects of dietary recommendations on the whole diet as, in
most cases, they generate changes in the consumption of many food categories in a way that is difficult
to predict. Looking solely at the magnitude of the environmental and health effects, targeting a reduction
in CO2 impact of the diet as well as an increase in F&V consumption represent particularly attractive
options for health and the environment. Even if those measures result only in modest (5%) changes in
consumption of the targeted quantity (F&V, CO2e), they are likely to (i) prevent in excess of 2100 deaths
annually, and (ii) reduce GHGEs by 1500 to 2900 kt of CO2e per year.
It is worth stressing that in most cases, the recommendations have positive impacts on both health and
the environment, which confirms the possible synergies between the two domains. However, those
synergies do not occur systematically, since the recommendation to decrease by 5% SFA (saturated fat
acids) leads to a large number of DA (deaths avoided) but an increase in the carbon footprint of the diets.
To compare the policies in terms of cost-effectiveness, we estimated the maximum amount that could
be invested by public authorities to promote a given recommendation so that the outcome would remain
socially desirable. Considering a range of plausible values, it turns out that: (i) informational measures
focused on F&V, SFA and sodium intakes, provided that they lead to at least a 5% change in the
consumption of the targeted food or nutrients, would be valuable investments, given their impacts on
health and/or environmental indicators; (ii) informational measures targeting CO2e, red meat or all meats
consumption would be valuable investments only for high valuation of DAs although that result is also
sensitive to the valuation of CO2.
Finally, we show that the monetary values of health benefits induced by dietary recommendations are
always much greater that those of environmental benefits. This suggests prioritizing health rather than
environmental issues in information campaigns dealing with food consumption.
17
References
Esnouf C, Russel M, Bricas N (2013) Food system sustainability: insights from duALIne. Cambridge University
Press.
Irz X, Leroy P, Réquillart V, Soler LG (2015) Economic assessment of nutritional recommendations. Journal of
Health Economics, 39, 188-210.
Masset G, Vieux F, Verger EO, Soler LG, Touazi D, Darmon N (2014) Reducing energy intake and energy density
for a sustainable diet: a study based on self-selected diets in French adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
99, 1460–9.
Réquillart V, Soler LG (2014) Is the reduction of chronic diseases related to food consumption in the hands of the
food industry? European Review of Agricultural Economics 41(3), 375-403.
Scarborough P, Allender S, Clarke D, Wickramasinghe K, Rayner M (2012) Modelling the health impact of
environmentally sustainable dietary scenarios in the UK. European Journal Clinical Nutrition 66, 710–5.
Vieux F, Darmon N, Touazi D, Soler LG (2012) High Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets
in France: Changing the diet structure or consuming less? Ecological Economics 75, 91-101.
Vieux F, Soler LG, Touazi D, Darmon N (2013) High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse
gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 97(3), 569-83.
World Health Organization (2003). Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a joint
WHO/FAO expert consultation. WHO technical report series 916.
18
R2A2 network – A think tank dedicated to the antimicrobial crisis
Christian Ducrot
ASTRE, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier, France
The R2A2 network (Research network on the Reduced use of Antimicrobials and resistance to
antimicrobials in Animal production) has been funded since 2013 by the GISA metaprogram (integrated
management of animal health). The general aim was to tackle the challenge of antimicrobial resistance
and respond to the urge of reducing the use of antimicrobials in animal production. For this purpose,
one main objective was to bring together scientists from different disciplines as well as various
stakeholders, from farmer to governmental organisations, in order to build a common and shared vision
of the global research needs. A second objective was to provide a forum for the incubation of co-
constructed, interdisciplinary research projects aiming at reducing both the use of antimicrobials and the
risk of antimicrobial resistance.
Together with scientists from Ecole des Mines, Paris, a collaborative project was set up on modelling
innovative design theory that resulted in building a C-K (Concept Knowledge) tree on ‘animal
production without resistance to antimicrobials’; this helped R2A2 defining topics of interest for the
network based on applied questions. A committee composed of five people (scientists and stakeholders)
contributed in defining the evolution of the network activities and the topics addressed along the
different R2A2 meetings, based on identified needs and depending on available calls for funding.
To date, 13 one-day meetings were held over the last five years (2 to 3 per year), with approximately 40
participants on average (2/3 scientists, 1/3 stakeholders) (See Figure). A large number of topics were
addressed within the scope of the network such as preventing infectious diseases, better use of
antimicrobials, spreading of resistance to antimicrobials, therapeutic alternatives to antibiotics, applied
questions linked to the use of antibiotics in the main animal sectors.... In addition to networking, at least
9 projects were co-constructed and submitted to various calls.
Figure 1. Distribution of the origin of the 40
attendees on average of the 13 meetings of the
R2A2 network held from 2013 through 2017
The network proved to be highly efficient in
promoting collaborations between social sciences and
biological sciences, and between technical institutes
and public research (different collaborative projects funded); it increased the interaction, exchanges and
collaborations between researchers, public stakeholders and private companies, with regular
Others; 2,2
Farmer Orga; 0,8
Vet Lab; 0,1
Veterinarians;
2,7
Industry; 4,3
Ministry; 2,2
Institutes; 3,2
ANSES; 3,1
SA division; 10,6
PHASE div.; 4,7
GA div.; 1,2
SAE2 div.; 1,3
MICA div.; 1,3
SAD div.; 0,6
SPE div.; 0,2EFPA div.; 0,1
EA div.; 0,3
19
participation and strong implication in workshop activities of these three categories and contracts
initiated between private companies and research teams. It also resulted in stronger collaborations
between representatives of the different INRA divisions, and in a common and shared vision of the
research priorities that was then included in the strategic agendas of the divisions.
Among others, three projects were built conjointly on the farmer’s perception concerning the use of
antimicrobials and their trajectories toward adopting a reduced use of these antimicrobials (see insert).
These were based on a fruitful collaboration between different researchers from social sciences and
biological sciences, and people from the institutes working on different species. From these studies and
collaborations, we currently build a European project, RoADMAP, coordinated by INRA to answer the
H2020 call (SFS-11-2018-2019: Anti-microbials and animal production) on rethinking management of
health of farmed animals.
The TRAJ project was the first designed following a R2A2 meeting. It was funded by the GISA
metaprogram and analysed the trajectories of farmers toward a decreased use of antimicrobials on their
farms. To provide an highlight of the results, in the case of pig farmers, the results have shown (Fortane
et al., 2015) that the dosing pump to deliver antimicrobials in drinking water for pig, instead of
delivering the drug in food, is nudging farmers to stop the use of antimicrobials. It allows them to react
rapidly in case of an unexpected sanitary problem, and it serves as a security device if they decide to
suspend the use of antimicrobials at critical periods of the life of pigs such as weaning. Other technical
devices could be imagined with this idea of nudging effect.
A complementary approach is now to broadly share the information and ideas exchanged during R2A2
meetings via web site (http://www6.inra.fr/r2a2/Comptes-Rendus) and applied research papers (one is
already published (Ducrot et al., 2017) , one is in progress), and to strengthen the link with agricultural
training organizations, which already participated in different RA2A meetings (one training session has
been jointly prepared).
The perspectives are to keep the organisation agile and adaptive to meet the evolution of the need and
demand from researchers and stakeholders involved in the network, to be formally integrated in the
updated version of the French national plan on antimicrobials, EcoAntibio, launched by the Ministry of
Agriculture (this was done in 2017), and to expand the network to other European countries.
References
Ducrot C, Fric D, Lalmanach AC, Monnet V, Sanders P, Schouler C, 2017, Perspectives d’alternatives
thérapeutiques antimicrobiennes aux antibiotiques en élevage. INRA Productions Animales, 30(1), 77-88
Fortané N, Bonnet-Beaugrand F, Hemonic A, Samedi C, Savy A, Belloc C, 2015, Learning processes and
trajectories for the reduction of antibiotic use in pig farming: a qualitative approach , Antibiotics, 4 (4), 2015, 435-
454
20
The CompAg project: Achieving agroecological transition through ecological
compensation
Isabelle Doussan1, Danièle Magda2
1 INRA, CREDECO-GREDEG, CNRS, Université Nice, 06560, Valbonne, France 2 INRA AGIR, INRA, INPL Toulouse, France
Abstract
The CompAg project (I. Doussan coordinator) is representative of what Ecoserv tried to promote with
funding “incubation projects”: offering time and resources to build relevant consortium to tackle a
scientific issue on ecosystem services in agriculture. Indeed, the Ecoserv funding in 2016 allowed
creation an interdisciplinary team to build a project that was proposed at the French National Research
Agency and accepted in 2017 (ANR-17-CE32-0014-02).
Objectives
The objective of CompAg is to combine two current objectives of public policies: (1) agro-ecological
transition, which involves a substantial change in agricultural practices, (2) effective implementation of
ecological compensation, which aims to no net loss or even a gain in biodiversity.
On one hand, ecological compensation, as established in France, consists of authorizing an activity for
which adverse impacts to the environment generated that cannot be avoided or reduced are offset. In
effect since 1976, but little applied, the ecological compensation mechanism was gradually strengthened
and finally introduced as a component of the principle of prevention of environmental damage in 2016.
On the other hand, and in contrast, the French agricultural policy aims to promote agro-ecological
transition, which involves moving towards production systems that rely on ecosystem functions and
services. This transition involves deep changes in farming practices and agricultural systems, that are
known to be difficult to operate but can potentially lead to significant improvements in the environment.
However, the measures currently under way do not seem likely to allow an effective agro-ecological
transition at the national level, particularly because of the low level of funding provided.
Scientific issues
An efficient compensation offer should rest on a balanced — and regulated – mechanism, allowing the
participation of a significant number of both compensation providers and applicants in search of
compensation units allowing them to fulfill their obligations, and ensuring the respect of the
environmental law principles. In this context, the interest of an agricultural offer of compensation is that
it is focused on ecological added values generated by widespread nature sites. The regulatory
mechanisms can therefore be oriented towards changes in agricultural practices likely to find
sustainability in the economic balance. Defining an ecological, economic and social equivalence
between gain and loss has proven to be difficult. Moreover, scientific and technical constraints have
reduced the success of restoration of distinctive environments, even though this is the goal of
compensation (Maron et al., 2013).Therefore, one of the main assumption of the CompAg project is that
ecosystem functions and services provided by widespread nature and related to agroecosystem could be
21
more reproductible. Compensation of widespread nature would allow, on the one hand, to rely on a
broader definition of equivalence, as the maintenance of a set of functions and services within a territory
(Levrel & Couvet, 2016) and, on the other hand, to increase the chances of success of restoration
(Pilgrim et al., 2013). Furthermore, the added value provided by the introduction of compensatory
measures by farmers would thus contribute at the same time to the agro-ecological transition objective.
The CompAg project presents three scientific issues:
1. To characterize the widespread nature sites for compensation.
2. To explore the agricultural offer of compensation as new paths for agroecological transition.
3. To analyze new forms of contracts between public, private actors and farmers at territory
level.
The research program was built by the research teams and the private sector partners. It aims to combine
theoretical considerations about ecological indicators with a comprehensive analysis of case studies in
order to develop a bioeconomic model dovetailing an agro-ecological module with a socio-economic
module in order to inform public decision-making.
In terms of results, CompAg aims to analyse the determinants of a credible agricultural ecological
compensation offer and to provide decision-making tools which would meet major objectives of both
agricultural and environmental policies.
Consortium
The consortium of the CompAg project gathers fourteen scientists in four major scientific fields
(ecology, economics, sociology and law) and three private partners: an agricultural cooperative group
(Agrosolutions), the Federation of natural areas managers (Conservatoires des espaces naturels) and a
social economy enterprise (Terre de Liens). Methodologically, this trio of private partners allows for
analysing different situations at different steps of the implementation of the offsetting mechanism.
Besides the co-construction of scenarios and models by the multidisciplinary and multi-actors
consortium will be regularly monitored by a follow-up committee comprising rural land use
stakeholders. The objective is to share the practical and theoretical results of CompAg with national and
regional public policy actors.
Figure 1.
Model for sharing finding of the research project
Figure 2. Ordinary biodiversity in Region
centre
From C.Pellegrin, C., Sabatier, R.,
Napoleone, C., and Dutoit, T. Une
22
définition opérationnelle de la nature
ordinaire adaptée à la compensation
écologique, le cas contrasté des
Régions Centre, Champagne-Ardennes
et PACA. Natures, Sciences, Sociétés.
A paraître 2018
First results
A first work has been conducted and published (between economists and ecologists) to produce a
relevant characterization of the widespread nature for the compensation goal. The objective is to produce
tools to identify zones within territories that are eligible for compensation. The assumption is that to be
eligible this nature needs to be under dependence with human activities which ensure compensation
implementation, but not too much otherwise practices changes would be difficult.
The first criteria is quite trivial and consist to select zones outside one with remarkable biodiversity
goals and already well documented by ecological sciences. The second is the link of dependency of
nature on human activities. And the third tries to catch the degree of complexity of the ecosystem. It
relies on what the authors call the « maturity » of the ecosystem as a result of a long term process. Higher
the complexity/maturity will be higher will be the difficult to manage it for compensation goal.
These criteria have been tested for the production of maps (Figure 2) to show the potential compensation
zones of different territories at the region scale in France. The map below shows the difference between
regions in the importance of eligible zones and also the good congruence between these zones and the
agricultural areas.
References
Levrel H. & Couvet D., 2016. Point de vue d’experts : Les enjeux liés à la compensation écologique dans le «
projet de loi biodiversité ». Fondation de l’écologie politique, 1–16.
Available at: http://www.fondationecolo.org/webuploads/download/870.
Maron, M. & al., 2012. Faustian bargains? Restoration realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies.
Biological Conservation, 155, 141–148.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320712002716.
Pilgrim J.D. & al., 2013. Offsetability is highest for common and widespread biodiversity: Response to Regnery
et al. Conservation Letters, 6(5), 387–388.
23
Governing by models: Land use models as tools for governing food security
(GOSAMO)
Allison Marie Loconto
Chargée de Recherche, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences, Innovations et Sociétés (LISIS)
Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée
5, bd Descartes
F-77454 Marne-la-Vallée Cedex 02
Web : http://umr-lisis.fr/
Email : [email protected]
Abstract
In an era of big data, achieving food security, as envisioned in the Sustainable Development Goals, will
require a complex process of international collaboration to establish global objectives based on precise
local measures. Agricultural and land use models are increasingly being used to bridge the global/local
divide, particularly as a means to envision future land access, use and management in different
agricultural production systems. This project, as part of the GloFoodS Metaprogram, contributes to our
understanding of global modeling (Axe 1), food security governance (Axe 2) and land use change (Axe
4). Specifically, it provides insights into the Inter-axes 2<->3<->4 theme that asks how does food
security governance affect agricultural practices and land use? GOSAMO does this by bringing reflexive
questions of knowledge production, public policy and civic engagement into the epistemic spaces of
model development, both to improve the way we model and to understand the implications of governing
by instruments (Lascoumes and Le Gales, 2007).
Keywords
Governance, agriculture, biodiversity, foresight, metrics, standards
Introduction
How does food security governance affect agricultural practices and land use? The way that this question
is formulated raises two large empirical questions: What type of agriculture? and what are the
appropriate public policies? In the current age of global food systems and big data, food security is rarely
governed per se. Rather, the rise of evidenced-based policy-making is increasing the use of foresight
studies and a wide variety of modelling techniques to inform agricultural and land use policy. The
GOSAMO approach promoted an interdisciplinary dialogue between ecologists and social scientists to
discuss what it means when models become tools of governing. Practically, this means that we examined
specific models at two levels: epistemically, we asked what are some of the difficulties that are
encountered during the construction of the models themselves, what hypotheses, knowledge, and data
are the models based upon? How do modelers manage uncertainties? How do models and modelers take
into account different scales? We also tried to think through how models (and metrics in general) might
be designed that are more sensitive to complex socio-economic dynamics? What are some of the debates
and controversies related to food security that are linked to how agriculture and land use are modelled?
This led us to take an original perspective on models and not only analyse how models represent the
24
reality that they are developed to represent, simulate or predict, but also how they allow actors to
intervene, hence considering models as both tools to produce knowledge and tools of government.
Results
From this perspective, and based on collective analysis of six different types of models, researchers
involved in GOSAMO produced a set of original results. Here I summarize two of these cases. In the
case of Brazil, Rajão and Hecht (forthcoming 2018) took a historical approach to examining the very
first modelling efforts of Amazon deforestation. The first Fearnside (1982) model was sensationalist,
claiming that “These trends collide with one of the Amazon's great illusions: the illusion of infinite size”
(pg. 88). Then came Laurence et al. (2001), whose predictions (based on the inclusion of roads into the
model) delayed the paving of BR-319 (Manaus - Porto Velho). Then with Nepstad et al. (2006) and
Soares-Filho et al. (2006), the characterization of protected areas as “barriers”, resulted in the
prioritization of such areas within The Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in
the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm). This is what the authors call the successful deforestation models
paradox: the first models Influenced environmental policy by showing the consequences of business as
usual: but then they changed their own predictions by transforming what the business as usual could
actually be. Thus, as seen by the grey Program to Calculate Deforestation in the Amazon (PRODES)
line, the first models have turned out to be very wrong in their predictions – but because of the
predictions that they did make, public policy responded with just as drastic measures – which then
enabled later models to more correctly reflect the business as usual trajectories of amazon deforestation.
In the case of the land sparing vs. land sharing debate Loconto et. al., (forthcoming 2018) expand the
understanding of techno-politics by arguing that the knowledge these models create and use are context
and discipline specific, but their translation into tools that are used outside of the scientific sphere often
lose that specificity of knowledge as they are adapted to different interests and uses. For example, the
Land Sparing model was developed within ecology based on bird species as the key indicator to test the
hypothesis that intensifying production can save nature for conservation. By conducting scientometric
and network analysis, we found that this model built on the Borlaug hypothesis and an underlying
compositional ethic of nature conservation where humans should exist outside of nature. The dominance
of this model has been picked up across all spheres of society, but particularly in the food industry – in
this case Nestle – whereby they have translated the idea of sparing land into a simple m2 measurement
for land as a core indicator in a tool that they use to make product design decisions. Their tool works on
the assumption that fewer m2 is better for sustainability and thus they can increase their sourcing from
intensive agriculture. By exploring this controversy, we concluded that we should be interrogating the
underlying knowledge of the models that we use, especially when they are developed in only one
discipline, to the same extent that we question their policy prescriptions. The GOSAMO partners discuss
these and other insights in the forthcoming special issue of Land Use Policy entitled: Governing by
models: exploring the technopolitics of the (in)visilibities of land.
Conclusions
The findings from across the models examined in GOSAMO led us to pose new scientific questions
around research methods and the politics of knowledge, such as: What is the role of a model in policy-
making – a conversation starter or a policy prescriber? And can interdisciplinary, and participatory,
approaches to data collection and model development reduce or increase the politics of knowledge?
These questions will be explored in a Summer Institute on the “Metrics of sustainability: Critical studies
25
of sites, practices, and performances of accountability in environmental governance”, co-organized with
Cornell University and the University of Toronto in July, 2018.
References
Fearnside PM (1982) Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: how fast is it occurring? Interciencia: revista de
ciencia y tecnología para el desarrollo 7, 82-88.
Lascoumes P, Le Gales P (2007) Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments—From the
Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance 20, 1-21.
Laurance WF, Cochrane MA, Bergen S, Fearnside PM, Delamônica P, Barber C, D'angelo S, Fernandes T (2001)
The future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science 291, 438-439.
Loconto A, Desquilbet M, Moreau T, Couvet D, Dorin B (forthcoming 2018) “The Land sparing – Land sharing
controversy: tracing the politics of knowledge” Land Use Policy.
Nepstad D, Schwartzman S, Bamberger B, Santilli M, Ray D, Schlesinger P, Lefebvre P, Alencar A, Prinz E, Fiske
G, Rolla A (2006) Inhibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks and Indigenous Lands. Conservation
Biology 20, 65-73.
Rajão R, Hecht S (forthcoming 2018) From “Green Hell” to “Amazonia Legal”: land use models and the invention
of military developmentalism in the tropics Land Use Policy.
Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Ramos CA, Voll E, McDonald A, Lefebvre
P, Schlesinger P (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440, 520.
26
On “TRACKS”... 10 years after
“Multidimensional analysis & support to Trajectories of conversion to
Organics”
S. Bellon, ECODEVELOPPEMENT, INRA, Avignon, France ([email protected])
Introduction
Conversion is a cornerstone of the development of organic farming. However, various conversion
patterns can be identified within farm trajectories : entry to farming and direct conversion to organics
(newcomers), opportunity to diversify productions and markets (renewing interest for agricultural
activity), or a strategy before farmers’ retirement and succession. In this paper, we briefly report on a
past project -called « Tracks » - focusing on farmers’ trajectories of conversion to organics. This project
was co-funded by INRA (Agribio 2 program, 2006-2008) and ACTA (the network of plant and animal
production institutes). It associated 4 partners (INRA Avignon & Alenya, and two technical institutes,
namely ITAB & CTIFL). It took place during a period in which conversion rate was rather low.
Rationale, objectives and methods
We considered trajectories (before and after conversion) and processes of change, based on the two
following premises:
• beyond a formal conversion period (2-3 years), wider time frames are at stake, which can be
approached as trajectories and transitions at farm level,
• beyond «motivations» (why farmers convert [or not] to organic farming?), other triggers are
active (how farmers transition to/in organics?).
Our objectives were (i) to identify the key elements of sustainable conversions, characterizing existing
production models in a dual socio-economic and agronomic perspective, and (ii) to suggest
recommendations for further development pathways in organic farming. We focused on two canonical
organic systems: horticulture (fruits and vegetables), and mixed crop-livestock. The work was based on
surveys in commercial organic farms, to explore the transition processes experienced and implemented
by farmers, and in one experimental horticultural station, to monitor soil fertility. Based on
interdisciplinarity and technical expertise, we combined interviews with producers, to trace and analyze
their socio-technical trajectories, and agronomic surveys, to explore the diversity of production methods
and their link with marketing.
Main results
1 From comprehensive interviews with farmers: transition as disruption or continuity?
Trajectories were represented with their set of triggers. In the following case of a fruit grower, birds
mortality due to the use of an insecticide (environmental incident) and shift to integrated fruit production
(Covapi) are among the many factors leading to conversion, epitomized by the key word “get started”
(Fig. 1).
27
Figure 1: Mid-term trajectory of a fruit grower, South of France, until a formal conversion
As a whole, transitions entail a transformation in farmers’ activities and skills. They require more
observation, knowledge and autonomy, especially in crop or animal protection practices. The technical
problems of production are not addressed only by technical solutions or in terms of know-how. Farmers
also act on other levers: diversification of production and/or activity, marketing (Navarrete, 2009).
Besides motivations, triggers are sometimes external (e.g. encounters) or contextual (e.g. legitimation
of organics). Triggers are part of a set of elements enabling conversion.
2. Acknowledging the diversity of organic models and practices
The diversity of organics can be represented with two axes (Sylvander et al., 2006), one related with
technological positions (Fig. 2a, vertical axis), the other one opposing individual and collective behavior
(Fig. 2a, horizontal axis). This discriminates 4 organic « models », and trajectories can inform about
possible transitions among such models. Based on this proposal, we analyzed fruit growers’ practices in
a network of 20 farms in the SE of France (Fig. 2b). Based on a PCA (Principal Component Analysis),
differences appear between early and late converters (F1 axis). Indeed orchard design and endowments
before conversion affect further pest and disease pressure (Bellon et al., 2009). We also found
commonalities among growers, in their way to control pest pressure and nutrient status (e.g. site and
cultivar selection). Since redesign and its effects take time, one also has to consider the trajectories of
biological ressources (“An old apple tree doesn’t produce old apples”).
Fig 2a. Diversity in organics Fig 2b. Fruit growers’ management patterns
3. Some side effects of this “Tracks” project
Apart from conventional productions (Lamine and Bellon, 2009a), this project also led to a collective
book on transitions (Lamine and Bellon, 2009b), with an extended authorship also enlarging the scope
(field crops, mixed systems, biodynamic wine production), and the support dimension of the project. It
also laid the basis of a « Mixed Thematic Network » dedicated to the development of OF, comprising
of 50 partners, and to a sequence of other projects dedicated to organic farming (e.g. ANR DynRurABio,
AgriBio3 AIDY), integrated fruit production (PFI) and agroecology in France and in Brazil. The
28
prototype dimension of organic agriculture is also a well documented situation to address transitions in
agroecology. In other words, a small project can sometimes have large effects.
To conclude, we addressed both the identity, the diversity and the dynamics of the organic sector,
where the relative importance of categories (Fig 2a) changes more than categories per se. Transition
patterns are a key to study and interpret reversion, organic performances and up/out-scaling potential.
Our multidimensional interpretation of change enabled showing some new relationships with
environment, techniques, professional networks, consumers, … We also noticed a co-evolution between
crop diversity and marketing channels diversification in the case of total farm conversion. More
generally conversion sheds light on transition processes in agriculture and food systems.
References
Bellon S., Bressoud F., Fauriel J., 2009. Capabilities for conversion to organic horticulture. Acta Hort n° 817.
Navarrete M., 2009. How do farming systems cope with marketing channel requirements in organic horticulture?
The case of market-gardening in south-eastern France, J. of Sust. Agric., 33 (5), 552-565.
Lamine C., Bellon S., 2009a. Conversion to organic farming: a multidimensional research object at the crossroads
of agricultural and social sciences. A review. ASD, 29 (1), pp.97-112.
Lamine C., Bellon S. (coord), 2009b. Transitions vers l’agriculture biologique. Pratiques et accompagnements
pour des systèmes innovants. Coll Sciences en partage. Quae/Educagri Eds.
Sylvander B., Bellon S., Benoit M., 2006. Facing the organic reality: the diversity of development models and
their consequences on research policies. Joint Organic Congress, Odense, Denmark, May 30-31, 2006.
29
Findings from the synthesis report on metaprograms
Thierry Caquet
INRA, 147 rue de l’Université, 75338 Paris Cedex 07, France. [email protected]
Abstract
During the preparation of IWIM2018, each metaprogram has carried a self-assessment exercise leading
to a diagnosis report organized in three parts: 1. Activities and outputs; 2. Progress in science; 3.
Achievements and progress towards outcomes. A synthesis report has then been drafted from the
individual self-assessment reports by INRA members of the Scientific Committee and of the Organizing
Committee of IWIM2018. This paper presents the main findings from this synthesis and discuss them
in the frame of the general objectives that were defined when INRA decided to launch metaprograms.
Keywords
Lessons learned – Interdisciplinarity – International – Integrative analysis
Introduction
After a few years of operation (3 to 6 years), INRA has launched a process of review of the metaprogram
(MP) tool. As part of this process, the International Workshop on Inra’s Metaprograms (IWIM)
organized in Versailles on February 1-2, 2018 was an important step. The synthesis report prepared for
IWIM2018 on the basis of the self-assessment reports issued by each MP contains many information
that make possible a first analysis of the activities and outputs of the metaprograms, of the progress in
science they have fostered and a first overview of achievements and progress towards outcomes. Main
findings from this synthesis report are presented in this paper together with a general analysis of the
success factor for MPs.
1. Activities and outputs
All MPs developed the same kind of activities: setting up MP (scope and perimeter, definition of
actions); community building through meetings and seminars; producing concept notes and position
papers (e.g., Lescourret et al., 2015; Benoit et al., 2017); issuing competitive calls for proposals;
fostering capacity building; identifying recruitment needs; and strengthening international dimension.
Six main categories of MP outputs have been recorded: i) creation of a stronger and wider scientific
community within the scope of each MP, fostering new collaborations; ii) benchmarking of INRA
activities; iii) strengthening of international collaborations, resulting in a higher visibility of INRA; iv)
funding and carrying out a wide range of projects, with a special effort on pluri-disciplinary projects; v)
publishing high level peer-reviewed papers (ca. 2,000); vi) constituting a step towards more ambitious
projects, thus confirming a leverage effect (e.g., 40 % of GloFoodS projects had a follow-up).
MPs have benefited from an average total direct funding by INRA of 400-500 k€ per year and per MP,
which translates in 2 to 2.5 M€ per year and per MP in terms of full costs (salaries of permanent staff
30
included). Calls for proposals were a common backbone for the use of these funds. They gave the
opportunity to fund either ‘bottom-up’ (i.e., following calls with a broad scope) or ‘top down’ (i.e.,
focused calls) projects. All calls were competitive, with a success ratio usually close to 30% of the
submissions. Since 2011, ca. 300 projects have been funded, among which 85% of ‘bottom-up’ projects.
Through the MPs, collaborations between social/applied mathematics/natural sciences divisions have
led to interdisciplinary projects. Moreover, collaborations across natural science divisions were
markedly strengthened. This dynamics may be demonstrated by the number of divisions represented in
the projects funded by each MP (usually more than 10 out of the 13 INRA divisions) or the number of
divisions involved in each project (about 3 on average). Although MPs only fund INRA teams (excepted
GloFoodS), many projects involved self-funded partners, especially personals from partners from joint
research units, but also sometimes private companies. Finally, MPs helped in strengthening international
collaborations through a support to the involvement of INRA scientists in international networks (e.g.,
MACSUR, AgMIP) or in co-funded ERANets.
With the exception of Organic Farming and Food, which has recently been transformed into a MP, all
MPs possess an international Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB had different level of
implication and the nature and frequency of the interactions between the steering committee of the MP
and the SAB were variable and evolved with time. In most cases, meetings were organised at least once
a year or every two years. SABs provided an external advisory vision on the strategic scientific mission
of the MPs and on the running of MPs (e.g., evaluation of proposals).
2. Progress in science
Each MP had a distinct scientific scope at the leading edge of agricultural, food and environmental
sciences, with topics ranging from genomic selection to improving dietary practices, and from a
sustainable management of plant or animal health to adaptation to climate change. Targeting these
objectives yielded diverse challenges for community building and multidisciplinary research. A
challenge shared by all MPs was the definition and implementation of new practices and strategies based
on integrative and holistic approaches. In addition, more specific challenges were also identified such
as for example adapting and disseminating conceptual frameworks, taking advantage from new
technologies or extending current approaches to other species.
Each MP independently identified a number of specific research areas and topics that would necessitate
a strong and sustained effort to be tackled. They were organized in specific roadmaps. However, there
was also a general, overarching challenge for all MPs, which consisted in gradually moving beyond
purely descriptive approaches to fully characterise, model, and control how ecosystems or agrifood
systems work. In their action, MPs have identified four main barriers: i) a need for conceptualisation;
ii) interdisciplinarity and integration of disciplines; iii) data availability and production/organization;
and iv) methodological developments (e.g., phenotyping, statistics, modelling). The steering committee
and SAB of each MP constructed the scientific strategy and mobilized diverse tools to implement it and
to monitor its impacts.
Building scientific communities to address cutting edge interdisciplinary science has also been a
challenge for all SCs. Networking, building-up a common culture, launching starter actions,
participating in international workshops were used for identifying the relevant community in national
and international surveys, constructing the researcher’s community and driving and renewing this
community.
31
Based on a survey performed on Web of Science, approximately 14% of the total peer reviewed papers
published by INRA between 2013 and 2016 have been supported at least partly by MPs. The overall
number of papers published by INRA has been slowly rising by 35% over 2010-2016. In contrast, the
total number of papers published by INRA in the fields of the MPs over the same time period has been
increasing dramatically, by +255 %. This increase has been significantly higher than the corresponding
global increase in publication numbers in these thematic fields (+158%). Three main lessons may be
drawn from this survey: i) these fields are developing very rapidly internationally and it was therefore
strategic for INRA to redirect its efforts in these fields; ii) the MPs successfully contribute to this
redirection; and iii) the MPs offered competitive advantage for INRA as compared to the global
literature trend.
One of the main outputs from MPs was the progress towards renewed conceptual or operational
frameworks such as advancing fundamental research, technology and social sciences together (e.g.,
SelGen), fostering interdisciplinary dialog between life and social scientists (e.g., EcoServ), bridging
mathematics and biology/ecology (e.g., MEM), or revisiting paradigms (e.g., from ‘one disease-one
pathogen’ to pathobiome for MEM; from ‘durable resistance’ to ‘durable resistance management’ for
SMaCH).
Multi- and interdisciplinarity are an essential foundation of the MPs. It is both an objective and a
necessity for addressing issues that are intrinsically multidisciplinary (climate change, food security,
crop protection, animal health, etc.), and because of the cross-cutting organization of MPs through INRA
divisions mainly structured in disciplinary fields. Six main manifestations of interdisciplinarity have
been identified: i) higher diversity of divisions in MP-related papers; ii) stronger collaboration between
social science, applied mathematics and natural sciences divisions; iii) shift of the questions addressed
by certain divisions; iv) interdisciplinary dialogue through joint projects; v) implementation of new
methods; and vi) design of conceptual frameworks and new/revisited research objects.
3. Achievements and progress towards outcomes
As it was shown in 2014 by the ASIRPA (Socio-economic Analysis of Impacts of Public Agronomic
Research; Joly et al., 2015) project, impacts are produced thanks to long-term investment in research
(14 years on average for the case studies addressed in ASIRPA) and the presence of collaborators other
than researchers for knowledge generation. The strongest impacts are often produced when research is
taken further to generate results that could easily be applied by socioeconomic players. Various
initiatives have been undertaken in order to speed-up the path towards impacts: i) issuing dedicated call
for proposals to support transfer and dissemination; ii) involvement of stakeholders through the creation
of a stakeholder committee; iii) organizing workshops on transfer and innovation; and iv) funding
projects involving private companies, international institutions or public authorities.
In addition, MPs have been engaged in a variety of communication actions corresponding to a range of
goals and audiences. Some of these actions are common to several MPs but none of them was run in all
MPs: institutional communication (internal and external), newsletters and mailing lists, symposiums and
conferences, public or professional events, traditional and social medias …
Developing international partnerships for the excellence of INRA research and promoting INRA
international leadership was among the required properties for MPs since their creation. However, there
was no pre-defined strategy. Therefore, the strategy was elaborated progressively by each MP, according
to its priorities, through a mix of bottom-up and top-down approaches: knowledge exchanges (seminars,
32
support to international conferences), direct funding and participation to programs and actions
(ERANets, networks), support to visiting fellowships, contribution to international platforms (e.g., FAO,
IBPES), projects led by SAB members, institutional actions …
The MPs have led to the creation of new consortium or research networks involving several disciplines.
These structures were the bases for grant applications to various calls, leading to a leveraging effect.
Examples include an H2020 project, ERANET-funded actions, and projects funded by the French ANR
or other sources (CASDAR, Ecophyto). In the case of SelGen, there was also an effect on EU calls
through the inclusion of new topics.
Finally, the contribution of MPs to training has been accomplished according to various modalities:
masters and doctorate courses, training modules (e.g., Massive Open Online Course), master and PhD
scholarships (110 PhD grants co-funded since 2011), and research schools. In addition, since 2011, 86
junior scientists and engineers were recruited by INRA as permanent staff (23% of the total tenure-track
recruitments) based on profiles initially provided or labelled by the MPs.
Conclusion
Time, partnership and international dimensions are cornerstones for fostering the success of MPs. Time
(and commitment of all personals involved, especially in MP steering committee) is needed to develop
MP management, to build interdisciplinary communities (with a permanent effort to avoid demtivation),
and to capitalize on projects outputs. Partnership is required to reach impacts whereas fostering
international activities is required to strengthen INRA’s leadership and tackle societal challenges at
appropriate scales.
References
Benoit M, Tchamitchian M, Penvern S, Savini I, Bellon S (2017) Potentialités, questionnements et besoins de
recherche de l’Agriculture Biologique face aux enjeux sociétaux. Economie Rurale 361, 46-69.
Joly P-B, Gaunand A, Colinet L, Laredo P, Lemarié S, Matt M (2015) ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based
approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization. Resarch Evaluation 24, 440-453.
Lescourret F, Magda D, Richard G, Adam-Blondon A-F, Bardy M, Baudry J, Doussan I, Dumont B, Lefèvre F,
Litrico I (2015) A social–ecological approach to managing multiple agro-ecosystem services. Current Opinon in
Environmental Sustainability 14, 68-75.
33
Findings from the IWIM Scientific Committee
Mark Howden1, Rachel Bezner-Kerr2, Tom Curtis3, Adam Drewnowski4, Carsten Enevoldsen5, Peter
Langridge6, Rebecca Nelson7 and Lucius Tamm8
1 ANU Climate Change Institute, 2601, Canberra, Australia. Email : [email protected] 2 Cornell University, 109 Farm Street, 14850 Ithaca, United States. Email : [email protected] 3 School of Engineering, Cassie Building (Room 1.10), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU, UK. Email : [email protected] 4 Center for Public Health Nutrition, University of Washington, 98195-3410 Seattle, WA, USA. Email :
[email protected] 5 Dept. Veterinary and Animal Sciences, CPH University, Groennegaardsvej 2, 1870
Frederiksberg C., Denmark. Email : [email protected] 6 University of Adelaide, Plant Genomics Centre, Hartley Grove, SA 5064 Urrbrae, Australia. Email :
[email protected] 7 School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA. Email :
[email protected] 8 FiBL, Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland. Email : [email protected]
The INRA Meta-Programs (MPs) approach is an impressive and ambitious initiative to transform the
scientific culture of one of the largest agricultural research organizations in the world. The MPs were
established to both exploit the potential and fulfill the mandate of INRA. This includes:
The Meta-Programs have had considerable success as identified below. Naturally, there is still much to
learn and to improve but this is to be expected after a first phase of such an ambitious agenda.
This abstract is a brief outline of a longer review of the INRA Meta-Programs undertaken in late 2017
and 2018. The review structure focused on issues around 1) transdisciplinarity, 2) progress in science,
3) success in solution-oriented research, 4) partnerships, knowledge transfer and innovation, 5) the
European and international dimensions and 6) governance, funding and human resources. The
information base for teh review was the experience of the Scientific Advisory Board members, the MP
self-evaluation reports, the ‘IWIM Self-Assessment Synthesis’ and discussions at two Scientific
Committee meetings. Given the time available this was necessarily a limited review.
We took transdisciplinarity to mean both the convergence of knowledge and development of theory
between different disciplines to create new knowledge and the integration of knowledge and application
between both the scientists and the key stakeholders affected by the research. On first part of this
definition, the MPs were highly transdisciplinary with, depending on the MP, 8 to 12 different
disciplines and 30 to 70 INRA research units involved. The MPs developed new conceptual models,
research methods and collaborations between natural and social sciences. However, the full benefits of
these were not fully realised nor were the efforts to address large-scale transitions in agricultural and
food systems. This is not surprising as these are difficult, complex multi-dimensional issues which
extend well beyond the normal remit of science. Within the science domain, systems approaches were
used but often did not go far beyond ecology and agronomy. There are opportunities to be more inclusive
of other elements. Similarly, there are significant opportunities to better document and communicate the
success of the MPs. One aspect that needed further evidence was whether the transdisciplinary nature
of the MPs was potentially a threats via ‘over-extending’ researchers involved.
The MPs clearly progressed the science via the almost 300 research projects that were funded via
competitive calls. In terms of bibliometric assessment of this, there were approximately 1600-2000 MP-
34
linked peer review papers some of which were influential in gap identification and priority setting.
Furthermore, in the area of organic farming research, it appears that the MPs resulted in a major increase
in publication numbers to the extent that INRA now is publishing more than the previous lead
organisations. However, the review committee had various concerns about publications as a metric of
science progress (e.g. ability to attribute publications to the MPs, appropriate baselines, whether
publications are a good metric for real-world impact). The MPs also achieved changes in the mode of
science (e.g. LACCAVE operating in a strongly transdisciplinary way) which are another dimension of
progress.
In relation to solution-oriented research, the MPs addressed climate change, environmental and health
damage related to pesticide use, waste and loss, groundwater depletion, etc. In addressing these isues
there was evidence of evolution towards more holistic approaches within MPs. In particular, there were
opportunities from more engaged approaches with stakeholders blending theory, observation,
experimentation and ‘natural experiments’/big data in seeking transformative solutions to big problems.
The review team noted that while there as an initial gap analysis was done in some MPs but there was
limited reporting as to how these were filled. Additionally, in general there was more of a focus on
transfer of science to other scientists rather than with stakeholders. In various projects there was some
innovative use of participatory methods but this was a relatively neglected approach for a systems-
oriented effort for which the integration of modeling, socio-ecological approaches, big data, and
participation all seem like critical elements of generating solutions. Similarly, whilst there was
acknowledgement of the opportunity for cross-learning, there was variation in the quality of stakeholder
engagement and the attention to outreach in some of the MPs seemed limited. In terms of evaluating the
benefits of the MPs, it was difficult to evaluate leverage/innovation from this expenditure compared
with alternatives.
In terms of the European and international dimensions, there was good evidence that the MPs had made
significant contributions to programs such as AgMip and MACSUR and with the GloFoodS partnership
with CIRAD and developing countries. The MPs resulted in numerous scientific meetings and generated
networks and collaborations leading to new, externally-funded projects. There was significant
international science input to the MPs via the Scientific Advisory Boards which provided external
science input into the formation and implementation of the MPs. However, recruitment of international
partners was limited by the current funding model (INRA or Joint Research Units only) and those that
did collaborate were often included late in the process rather than being included early on when they
could have had greater impact on the research done.
In terms of governance, funding and human resources, there were significant costs in establishing MPs,
but small projects arising from them. The review team thought that it would be useful to ensure the
application of INRA’s broader career incentives and performance metrics to be explicitly inclusive of
transdisciplinary approaches and both process and outcomes. This may encourage transdisciplinarity to
become more embedded into the culture and procedures of INRA – the degree to which this happened
in the MPs was unclear. The MPs created excitement and some renewal, but also initial apprehension
and attention could be given to managing this. The review team also considered that there was a need
for more enhanced evaluation. For example asking questions such as ‘Are gains in certain
transdisciplinary areas being made at the cost of some disciplinary focus and strength?’
In summary, the MPs were a successful organizational innovation that generated considerable science
outputs and advances and resulted in some notable real-world outcomes. The future evolution of the
MPs could benefit from more inclusive goal-setting, systematic assessment of the pathways to impact,
outcomes evaluation and increases in the engagement with stakeholders, interaction across different
disciplines in INRA and interactions external to INRA.
35
Agriculture and Agrifood Canada’s approach to interdisciplinary research
programs
Brian T. Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-food
Canada
Floor 6, Room 330, 1341 Baseline Road, Tower 5, Ottawa, ON, K1A0C5, Canada,
Abstract
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s (AAFC) science programming has always been oriented towards
supporting the Canadian agricultural sector. As the sector needs are not disciplinary by nature, our
science is not organized by disciplines. A large portion, 75%, of our research funding is tied to
government priorities and over 45% of our funding is industry-led. Recognizing that government
priorities don’t necessarily address the emerging grand challenges, nor do they encourage opportunities
for international collaboration, we use transformative workshops to identify these opportunities and
emerging challenges.
Keywords
Research and Development Centres, international collaboration, sector strategies, living lab,
Metaprogram, multidisciplinary
Introduction to AAFC’s science capacity
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada’s (AAFC) unique network of 20 Research and Development Centres
(RDCs), 35 research farms and 2 technical demonstration sites located across Canada provides multiple
points of regional connectivity. The 20 RDCs are managed by 12 Directors and have been operating for
a long time; 70% of the RDCs have been operating for over 100 years. The RDCs reflect the agricultural
needs of the regions while also being linked by national programs.
AAFC’s science programming has always been oriented towards supporting the Canadian agricultural
sector. As the sector needs are not disciplinary by nature, AAFC science is not organized by disciplines.
The Science and Technology Branch (STB) Sector Science Strategic Matrix (Figure 1) identifies the 9
sector strategies, each of which aims to achieve 4 strategic objectives, to address the major scientific
challenges of 21st century agriculture production systems. The strategies describe areas of focus for
AAFC research, development and technology transfer (RDT) activities through which the Branch aims
to achieve 4 strategic objectives. Of the 9 sector strategies: 6 are commodity based (for example Cereals
and Pulses or Beef and Forages) and 3 are horizontal strategies. Each sector strategy has a Director Lead,
who is responsible for at least one RDC, and is accountable for ensuring the objectives are achieved and
results are reported. These research efforts complement scientific efforts by industry, other government
organizations and academia working in the sector.
36
Figure 1: STB Sector Science Strategic Matrix
AAFC conducts annual reviews to find and fill knowledge gaps of the sector strategies. The sectors are
multidisciplinary by nature and while each sector strategy has many projects which are discipline-
specific, collectively they are multidisciplinary. Nonetheless, less than 10% of the projects would be
truly multidisciplinary in the manner of the Institut national de la recherche agronomique (INRA)
Metaprograms.
AAFC investment in research
AAFC research funding is tied to government priorities with about 75% of funding allocated based on
a 5-year policy framework and other initiatives. The current policy framework is Growing Forward 2
(2013-2018) and will be succeeded by the Canadian Agricultural Partnership. Industry-led funding
accounts for 42% of the total non-salary funding (Figure 2) and is unique compared to most other
countries in that it assures AAFC’s science addresses the industry’s most pressing needs.
Figure 2: Source of Research Funding for AAFC Scientists (Estimates from AAFC 2017-18
data; non-salary)
In terms of funding for science within AAFC, the budget for 2017-2018 is $246.7 million; with $164.9M
allocated to salary, $72.5M to operating and $9.3M to capital. Funding is allocated by sector strategy
with the largest amount going to Cereal & Pulses ($16.5M total for 186 projects) and Agroecosystem
Resilience ($10.9M total for 96 projects). Of the 692 projects funded, the vast majority, 95% of
operating, is allocated to research or related science activities, 4% to development which is mostly the
domain of industry and 1% to knowledge and technology transfer which is mostly the domain of
provinces, territories and industry associations.
37
Transformative Workshops and Living labs
Recognizing that AAFC’s 9 sector strategies don’t necessarily address the emerging grand challenges,
nor do they encourage opportunities for international collaboration in this area, STB launched the
transformative workshops (TWs) in 2016. TWs are competitive, scientist-driven processes that generate
ideas to address agricultural grand challenges. Each TW is expected to explore a new direction of AAFC
science activities to ensure AAFC remains at the cutting edge of science and is best positioned to support
the Canadian agricultural sector.
AAFC has held very successful TWs in the past year in areas such as Building Resiliency in Agricultural
Landscapes, Vertical Farming, Biovigilence, Phenomics, and Indigenous Agriculture and have one more
planned this year on Big Data and Precision Agriculture. The outputs from these TWs have been used
to direct AAFC’s science in emerging areas, introduce new research approaches, foster a culture that
recognizes the power of collective exploration, and strengthen AAFC’s internal and external networks.
These workshops have the potential to generate concrete projects. For example, the Building Resiliency
in Agricultural Landscapes TW led to AAFCs Living Laboratories (Living Labs) program.
The Living Labs are a new interdisciplinary science program. They are simultaneously a place and an
interdisciplinary approach to innovation where multiple stakeholders co-develop new knowledge and
technologies, and conduct demonstration projects on farms to help inform practice and adoption. The
Living Labs is a Metaprogram in the making; it is being designed from the ground up with AAFC
scientists, producers, NGOs, academic and international partners. To implement this concept, we have
engaged international colleagues from INRA, the United States Department of Agriculture and the
United Kingdom’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. There are clearly
opportunities for international collaboration in this area, as we can all learn from one another.
38
CAAS and its inter-displinary programs
Xueping Zhou
Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, email: [email protected]
The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) is a national, integrative agricultural scientific
research organization with responsibility for carrying out both basic and applied research, as well as
research into new technologies impacting agriculture. CAAS was established in 1957 and it oversees 42
institutes, of which 34 are direct affiliates. The remaining 8 institutes are co-hosted together with local
governments or universities. Research and policy work at the academy cover a broad range of topics
that have been categorized as eight disciplinary clusters including crop science, horticulture science,
animal science, veterinary medicine, agricultural resources and environment, agricultural mechanization
and engineering, agro-product quality, safety and processing, and agricultural information and
economics.
The Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program (ASTIP), launched in January 2013, is
directly supported by the Chinese central government. The objectives of ASTIP are supporting long-
term and interdisciplinary research by providing stable and continuous funding, revamping the
recruitment system by injecting new funds so that “every research project will be carried out by a team
of the most brilliant scientists led by experts on the subject, speeding up the expansion of critical research
facilities and infrastructure, and fostering more international cooperation.
Three phases are planned for ASTIP, paralleling China’s 12th, 13th, and 14th ‘five-year plans’ between
now and 2025. From 2013 to 2015, the first phase of ASTIP focused on the exploration of a new and
more efficient organization to support agricultural innovation. The second phase, from 2016 to 2020,
will be the review and adjustment period in which lessons learned in the first phase will be applied to
fine-tune priorities. Additionally, international cooperation, capacity building, and the enhancement of
research facilities and infrastructures will reach their peak. Finally, from 2021 to 2025, the final phase
will be to continue the expansion of all parts of the program.
The major research areas supported by ASTIP are targeted crop breeding by design; localization
breeding of new animal breeds; green and precise prevention and control of crop pests and weeds; rapid
diagnosis, prevention and control of major animal diseases; efficient and circular utilization of
agricultural resources; prevention and control of agricultural environment pollution in typical regions;
monitoring, early-warning and control along the whole process of the quality and safety of agricultural
products; R&D of intelligent agricultural facilities and equipment; innovation and application of
agricultural biomics; function upgrading and tiered processing of agricultural products; policy study of
the development of agriculture in transition; agricultural big data mining and application; integration
and innovation of western dryland farming technologies; green and efficiency integration on crop yield
increment; green and efficiency integration on livestock production; modern urban agriculture
ASTIP significantly improve CAAS’s innovative capacity by enabling further acquisition of top
scientists, improving research infrastructure, and overcoming technical bottlenecks that have limited
agricultural development in China. CAAS will continue to lead and promote modern agricultural
development in China, with an eye to becoming one of the top agricultural scientific and technological
institutions in the world by 2025.
39
Interdisciplinary @ Wageningen University & Research
Dr. Martin C.Th. Scholten
Board of Directors, Wageningen University & Research (NL) [email protected]
Wageningen University & Research is a hybrid organisation of fundamental science connected with
applied research and development; and with frontier research connected to education of future
generation scientists. Being part of the world famous agri-horti-food business in the Netherlands, the
research is focussed on its impact on business by connecting knowledge with entrepreneurship, societal
challenges and disruptive key technologies support the innovation towards sustainable food and
nutrition security. Integration of scientific disciplines in an interdisciplinary way is crucial in our
domain. Engineering the food, feed and biobased production to achieve a sustainable food security
requires a connection to environmental sciences acknowledging the ecologically efficient and
responsible use of natural resources from the living environment. But also a connection to social sciences
from a socio-economic perspective of a biobased society with human well-being and livelihood.
The interdisciplinarity is also interwoven in the five strategically selected investment themes to address
the sustainable development goals with our excellence in science:
Global One Health, interconnecting the natural science behind the One Health issues with the
social science behind the Global Health issues;
Resource Use Efficiency, interconnection agro-engineering with ecological intelligence
regarding natural resources;
Resilience, interconnecting the biological, ecological and societal systems at various scales.
Metropolitan solutions, interconnecting the challenges of urbanization with healthy living,
nutrition security and circularity in the use of renewable resources.
Synthetic Biology, interconnecting biology and technology in nature inspired, disruptive
solutions
The benefits of interdisciplinary approaches are clearly reflected in larger impact of the science; both
from an academic perspective (top publications) as well as from a societal perspective (contribution to
grand challenges and transitional innovations). This appears to be also a very attractive learning
environment for the modern style education and human resource development of the new generation of
scientists.
The next stage of transdisciplinary approaches comes in the so called ‘triple helix” with multiple
stakeholder engagement with partners from business and society (various private sectors and companies;
various public sectors and NGO’s) in so called multidisciplinary science.
It requires international joint forces in global research alliances of strategic partners skilled in
interdisciplinary research to be successful as scientific organization in the future. INRA is a strategic
partner for Wageningen University & Research to elaborate on European and Global leaderships in a
science based sustainable food security within the capacity of planet earth.
40
Interdisciplinary @ UK
Steve Visscher CBE – Deputy Chief Executive – International, BBSRC,UK
Steve welcomed the opportunity occasioned by the IWIM meeting to learn more about INRA’s
experience with its ambitious Metaprograms to promote greater cross departmental and interdisciplinary
working. He commended the progress which had been outlined and welcomed such developments which
he saw as part of a clear global trend. Such approaches also brought new challenges and collaborative
opportunities. To provide an international context Steve outlined related developments in the UK which
were also emphasising a shift towards greater inter disciplinary working whilst recognising that such
developments were only possible if built on nurturing and preserving strong disciplinary expertise. I was
important to maintain an appropriate balance.
A fundamental review of UK research had been conducted by Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal
Society at the request of Government. His wide ranging report, ‘Ensuring a successful UK research
endeavour’ (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nurse-review-of-research-councils-
recommendations) had stimulated some key developments, many of which were influenced by the
greater need for inter disciplinary research. The report has led to:
A reorganisation of UK Research Funding by bringing together all the Research Councils, the
Innovation agency and University research funding into a single organisation, UK Research and
Innovation (UKRI)
New research funding lines are to be established by UKRI to support: (i) multi-disciplinary and
inter-disciplinary research, receiving bids for activities that cross boundaries between the
Research Councils, or between the Research Councils and Innovate UK or Government
Departments; (ii) proposals for research to address cross-cutting societal needs, including grand
challenges, and responses to emergency situations; and (iii) to support the adjustment of
individual Research Council portfolios in response to scientific developments which open up
new opportunities
A new government Industrial Strategy had led to the establishment of a new Industrial Strategy
Challenge Fund which is adopting a strong multidisciplinary approach. The fund represents part
of the government's £4.7 billion increase in research and development over 4 years
A £1.5billion Grand Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) has been introduced to focus on
developing countries as part of the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of gross domestic product
on Official Development Assistance. This fund is seeking many international partnerships and
again is promoting multidisciplinary approaches to tackle the Millennium Development Goals
Brexit offered many uncertainties in the short term but was also serving as a fresh stimulus to
international collaboration. The UK remains committed to finding suitable mechanisms to sustain and
build on existing strong research links in Europe and to expand these with non EU countries.
The mechanisms for review and evaluation of multidisciplinary programmes also bring new challenges
and complexity which mean that the sharing of experiences among international partners would be
extremely valuable. Enhanced networking between cognate programmes in different countries and the
alignment of new activities also offered new opportunities for synergistic collaboration at the
international level.
41
Sharing our understanding of research programs
addressing grand challenges
42
Land sustainability and global change
Pavel Kabat
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria. [email protected]
System thinking is a complex word to explain, especially when facing government actors. It is all about
how to build storylines of sustainable transformation, which need science and data and are based on the
connectivity between different disciplines and different approaches.
In September 2015, 193 countries agreed to adopt 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) inducing
emotion in heads of state. However, those 17 goals of the Agenda 2030 then became « scattered » words
on the global matrix of responsibility since issues are usually dealt in silos. However, connectivity and
using the core benefit of integrated thinking and science can save us a lot of efforts for reaching SDGs,
and there is economic value buried in transdisciplinarity as well.
We lack at this moment a truly integrated, comprehensive quantitative understanding of sustainable
development pathways, accounting for the inter-linkages between the economy, technology,
environment, climate, human development and planetary boundaries, on how to go ahead with those big
transformations.
Let us take the example of urbanization. Currently, about 50% of global population, global industry, and
part of agriculture is in urbanized region and in the future, this share will strongly increase. Moreover,
we are facing the future where by 2030-2050 at the latest, 80% of most of the activities will be centered
within hundred kilometers from the coast globally with many environmental impacts.
The Paris climate agreement decided to set a 1.5 °C global warming target, if possible. As with a 2°C,
this target will require negative carbon emissions (e.g. RCP2.6 scenario, Representative Concentration
Pathway2.6°) that may be based on land activities.
Another field of the global discourse is education attainment. Primary education is a big success;
secondary education, which is clearly connected to the primary, secondary, tertiary economic and well-
being benefits, is still a big challenge. So huge investments need to be done in this transformation
through the education.
How can this transformative horizontal thinking pay off?
One example goes back to the energy system in 2006, where secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon came to
IIASA and asked if it is possible in 2030 to have a global access to energy to everybody. Currently, 2
billion people do not have access to the modern electricity. At the same time, can we double the rate of
renewables in the energy access and can we double efficiency? A successful global energy assessment
report including about 500 peoples was edited in 2012 defining a new global energy policy agenda, one
that transforms the way society thinks about, uses and delivers energy, it became the basis for adoption
of Sustainable Development Goal #7.
Another cross sector debate is about the air quality, whose European Directives are made by IIASA
calculations, where a full cycle of science-policies is made. In 2012, IIASA published in Science
together with 20 colleagues an article about air quality, showing that reducing short lived gases to
reasonable limits could reduce warming by 0.5 C by 2050. This article gave support to the idea of using
the air quality enterpoint rather than climate to the US congress that year. That led to a big coalition of
60 countries on energy, climate and air quality together (CCAC). The GEA report shows the multiple
benefits of integrated policies over a silo, sector approach. Indeed, as showed on the following graph,
cost of achieving all 3 objectives at Stringent level is less than the sum of “Only Energy Security” and
“Only Air Pollution and Health” and “Only Climate Change” bars. In other words, the sum of the three
43
leftmost bars is greater than the rightmost part (~50% greater). Considering a global GDP of 100 trillion
a year, we can save about 600 billion a year if we try to implement the integrated horizontal approach
in our policies and do system thinking.
Source: McCollum, Krey, Riahi, 2012
The problem is that we do not have any governance system or institution, able to deal with it. We are in
a big confused world, in transition to something different, but we do not know how to do it yet.
Another fascinating example is demography in India.
IIASA has developed research methods to project population by level of education. This equips
researchers with the tools to explore the implications of different education policies on a country’s future
fertility, life expectancy, migration and population level as well as economic growth, transition to
democracy and ability to adapt to climate change. Findings for India show how different education
policies over the next few decades could lead to a population of 1,131 million in 2100, which is declining
(high investment into the secondary education for both male and female), or to a population of 2,687
million that continues to soar.
Likewise, it was observed that number of children per family in Nigeria for example, goes down by
factor 4 as an average when there is an empowering of woman in the family by education in the
secondary. This is a kind of system thinking where you start with the education and actually end up with
the well-being and economic and demographic dividend and profit.
IIASA's Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM) is used to analyse the competition for land
use between agriculture, forestry, and bioenergy, which are the main land-based production sectors. As
such, the model can provide scientists and policymakers with the means to assess, on a global basis, the
rational production of food, forest fiber, and bioenergy, all of which contribute to human welfare. As an
example, we looked into the agriculture market and Paris agreement consequences and ask ourselves,
what would it mean when you go to a 1,5 C limit and you need a lot of land to do the fixing of the
carbon.
We are now in the Anthropocene. It will be impossible to achieve the 17 sustainable development goals
by 2030, so we need to think about the horizon 2050 and the transformation will have to start between
2030 and 2050 because if not, we will be jumping of many of the global planetary limits. Science
44
communities have a role to play and need to become partners, not stakeholders, of global initiatives such
as the leadership council of The World in 2050 Project (TWI2050). This project will explore the
implications of the necessary transformative sustainable development pathways and the possible
‘degrees of freedom’ to meet economic development goals within a safe operating space of a stable
planet.
45
Towards a foresight on SDG compatible European food systems
Monique A.V. Axelos,
INRA 147 rue de l’Université 75007, Paris France, www.inra.fr, [email protected]
The challenge to face
The challenge to face is to achieve food and nutrition security for 9 billion people in 2050 with 66%
living in urban areas. The population is ageing with, in average, more incomes, but with an increase in
social inequalities. This would lead to an increasing demand for food. In the same time it would be
necessary to reduce the triple burden of malnutrition, namely under and over nutrition and
micronutrients deficiency, and their resulting chronic diseases which generate major economic cost in
addition to severe human costs. We have also to reduce the environmental impacts of food production,
which are among other the decrease of biodiversity, deforestation, decrease of soil fertility and water
quality. The climate change will compounds the problem.
So transformational change is needed. It is no more possible to address separately any problems. There
is a consensus that we need a system approach.
Food system approach
The food system (FS) approach is gaining traction in both the scientific as well as in the business and
policy community. The food system approach makes the link between societal issues such as health and
nutrition and environmental sustainability and climate. It is a holistic approach, which may help us
understand better the interconnectedness of actions in the different part of the food system and their
consequences for other parts. The FS approach to research and innovation policies contribute to address
long term systemic challenges, to secure jobs and growth in the EU sector, to make good use of new
scientific and investment opportunities and ultimately to deliver on the UN SDGs.
The conceptual framework proposed in the HPLE report 2017 “Nutrition and food systems” gives a
good vision of what food systems might look like. It highlights how the different drivers have an impact
on food supply, food environments and consumer behaviour and how diets play a central role between
the food system and their nutrition and health outcomes on one hand and their social, economic and
environmental outcomes on the other hand. But food systems is becoming a buzzword and it is still not
evident how such a wide and integrated approach may be used to convene all actors to work together to
reach the SDGs.
What lesson can be drawn from previous foresight studies?
Many foresight studies have been already undertaken on:
- environmental impact of agriculture (land use change, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission,
water use and pollution)
- health impact of nutrition and lifestyle (obesity, chronic diseases …)
looking at the effects very often separately.
46
More recently, foresight studies propose a more integrated vision. For example among these studies,
Agrimonde Terra is a foresight study on global security and land use in 2050. The experts have built
five contrasted but consistent land use scenarios based on alternative assumptions for seven drivers:
global context, climate change, food diets, urban/rural relationships, farm structures, livestock systems
and cropping systems. In their so-called “healthy” scenario, they show that it is possible to get healthier
diet with a limited agricultural land area expansion at the world level. Using the “Globagri” model, they
found a land area expansion between 0.6 to 6 % compared to 25% for the “metropolization” scenario
based on the continuation of past and current trends. They point out that potential tensions could arise
between food security and climate change mitigation objectives (deforestation) and that a strong
coordination of international policies is needed.
In the report on “Nutrition and Food systems” from HLPE they indicate that environmental benefits of
dietary patterns do not consistently correlate with health benefits and that it exists a lack of statically
significants findings on the reduction of chronic diseases so recommendations for sustainable diets still
remains problematic with difficult trade –offs. They insist on the coherence between policies and on the
need to adapt policy interventions to the local context. Finally, they point out the lack of data.
Human and eco-systems health as a driver for change ?
The IPES Food report untitled “Unraveling the food-health nexus” proposes that the reform of food and
farming systems can be made on the grounds of protecting human health. It is a very inspiring foresight
exercise made at the global level. They analyse how health risks are deeply connected with
environmental risks through diseases and contaminations and how dietary patterns affects the food
systems. They highlight how food systems are a major driver of climate change, poverty, inequality and
unsanitary conditions and in turn how these issues exacerbate a range of health risk associated with food
systems.
Need for a new foresight study:
Taking a similar framework of protecting human and ecosystems health, we think that a new foresight
study is needed to add the dimension of the bioeconomy. It is of major importance to include other uses
of biomass in consideration including the role of biomass in energy challenges for their major impact
on food systems, land use, carbon sequestration…. This foresight study has to be done at the EU level
taking into account territory specificities, in connection to global dimensions, because the EU agri-food
sector is a major economic sector which is not uniform across Europe with large differences between
east and west and north and south.
References
HLPE. 2017. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and
Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.
FAO. 2013a. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation
opportunities. FAO, Rome.
International Food Policy Research Institute. Global Nutrition Report 2016: From Promise to Impact: Ending
Malnutrition by 2030 (IFPRI, 2016); available at http://go.nature. com/2g3er5u
47
Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. Food Systems and Diets: Facing the Challenges of
the 21st Century (Global Panel, 2016); available at www.glopan.org/foresight
Agrimonde-Terra: Foresight land use and food security in 2050. http://institut.inra.fr/en/Objectives/Informing-
public-policy/Foresight/All-the-news/Agrimonde-Terra-foresight-study
IPES-Food. 2017. Unravelling the Food–Health Nexus: Addressing practices, political economy, and power
relations to build healthier food systems. The Global Alliance for the Future of Food and IPES-Food.
48
Rethinking the Meta-program tool
49
From Meta- Programmes to Mission-Oriented Programmes?
Tom Curtis 1, Didier Andrivon 2
1 Newcastle University, UK - [email protected] 2 INRA, France – [email protected]
The ‘Lamy report’ (Lamy et al., 2017) on improving impact of EU Research and Innovation
Programmes listed as one of its recommendation to conduct ‘mission-oriented research’
(recommendation 5). It was thus logical that one of the prospective exercises during IWIM 2018 was
dedicated to the opportunity to turn INRA metaprograms into ‘mission oriented programmes’. This idea
raised a number of issues among participants to this seminar, which this paper attempts to briefly
summarise.
What is mission-oriented research?
There is tremendous scope for abuse when defining missions for research. One such definition might be
as a research programme with a goal, that has societal appeal and mobilizing across sectors and silos.
Such a definition imposes real vision for the start on, as bad execution will discredit all involved.
Mission-oriented research is therefore not for the self-serving scientist, nor for the short-term
stakeholder.
The type of mission for research can be anything: it can be ( but is not necessarily) geographically
constrained, it can be policy-driven or policy-related, and it can start small (a small good mission is
always better than a large bad one). Examples of missions can be: combating obesity; securing healthy
food and water; eradicating Salmonella dublinii….
Two falsehoods about mission-oriented research need to be combated: 1) ‘mission lead research does
not need basic science’, and 2) ‘mission lead science is “second class” . Both these commonplace views
are entirely misguided – see the epitome of mission-lead research that was the Apollo space programme
if requiring a demonstration.
Conditions for success… or failure
1- Choose the right goal
Vision is paramount here… and it must be held by the funding body commissioning the mission. This
is the most crucial condition to correctly define the mission and convey it to the research communities
to be mobilised.
2- Choose your mission carefully
It is essential that the goal is clearly defined and accepted from the start, not only by the funding body
but also from the team(s) that will need to be mobilised to achieve it. The definition of the mission might
cover only part of the grand objective put forward in the preceding step, but it must participate to it.
50
3- Whose mission is it?
Answering this question equates to identifying and putting together the right team/consortium to address
the mission in its entirety. This is a critical step, as is the ability to have the team/consortium work
together (rather than side by side) towards a common goal.
4- Is the required money there?
Apollo cost 163 billion US $ in today’s money. It is useless to embark on a mission if the means required
to achieve it, and mainly the financial resources, are not there.
To conclude
Engaging in mission-oriented research might be a good idea, but is a risky one. Not only because
mission-lead science may be harder, may require more imagination, more vision, but also because it
absolutely requests substantial budget over extended periods of time.
Metaprograms are, at least for most of them, already mission-oriented programmes: they address grand
challenges of importance for society, with a strategic planning over a number of years and substantial
inputs in terms of human capital, competences and running money. It is only in their operation (reporting
and deliverables) that they differ from standard mission-oriented research.
References
Lamy P, Brudermüller M, Ferguson M, Friis L, Garmendia C, Gray I, Gulliksen J, Kulmala H, Maher
N, Fagundes MP, Wozniak L., Zic Fuchs M (2017). LAB – FAB – APP - Investing in the European
future we want. Report of the independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research
& Innovation Programmes. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
51
Rethinking the MP tool: From Meta-programs to International programs?
Véronique Decroocq1, Rebecca J. Nelson2
1 UMR 1332 Biologie du Fruit et Pathologie, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, 71 Av. E. Bourlaux, CS 20032,
33882 Villenave d’Ornon Cedex, France. Email: [email protected] 2 School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA. Email:
Introduction
Since the creation of the metaprograms (MPs), it was envisaged that they would develop international
partnerships that enhance the excellence of INRA research and promote INRA’s international
leadership. International collaborations allow the MPs to tackle challenges that exist at the European
and global scales, and to adopt scientific strategies and practices in these contexts. Several MPs have
indeed undertaken international work; the “Riz Eternel” project of SMACH, the work on adaptation of
water resource management in India (the “Aicha” project partly funded by AAFCC) and the entire
GloFoods MP are outstanding examples. In addition, INRA teams have engaged with international
modeling efforts like AgMIP and MAGSUR, bringing in together modeling approaches. INRA works
with CSIRO on climate change (CC) adaptation and genomic selection, sharing costs and designing
activities with bilateral review and exchanges of scientists and students.
Why and why not?
There are “pros and cons” to international work. The potential benefits are (i) to raise MPs’ (and through
it, INRA’s) international profile, (ii) to get input in gap areas, positioning INRA MPs research priorities
at a global level, (iii) to share knowledge and expertise, thus delivering broadly MPs’ outputs. Potential
problems were also identified: (i) non-INRA partners do not have access to MP resources; (ii) INRA
research is rightly focused on serving French agriculture, which constrains the scope of MP efforts; and
(iii) it is potentially difficult to bring in international partners once MP plans are established.
There was no pre-defined encompassing strategy to ensure the international engagement of the INRA
MPs. While the MPs have encouraged inter-disciplinarity within INRA since 2011, the inter-disciplinary
programs rarely involved co-construction with other non-INRA or foreign institutes. When envisaging
any ambitious international engagement, it will be important to define whether to choose pre-existing
ideas (or MPs) or to co-construct new ones with international partners.
Should INRA choose to further its international strategy for the MPs, it could build on existing
partnerships such as those mentioned above, as well as others. Currently, for example, one of INRA’s
priorities is the setup of efficient and pro-active research networks between Mediterranean countries.
This could be achieved in the short term through international initiatives such as PRIMA. There are
many other opportunities, such as developing tighter links with European commission research
programs, which are increasingly open to the world. Other international organizations such as OECD
and CGIAR could be targeted, together with other French research institutes working internationally
(CIRAD, IRD). This would allow MPs to broaden their scope and extend their outreach activities.
Such ambition requires to organize and assess international, inter-organizational work, maybe first with
priority partners (e.g., Rothamsted, EMBRAPA which share strategic targets & see what emerges). The
next issue would be to align with existing alliances, at the European level and beyond, sharing clusters
52
of research and educational programs, networks of staff exchanges providing joint curricula or/and
online coursework. This could be set up through ERA-net, H2020 or multilateral programs.
How?
Internationalization of the MPs requires the identification of the means and tools already available or to
be developed. Some of the mechanisms discussed include:
Further elaboration of existing linkages (such as the Univ. of Laval or Tsukuba Univ., which
currently partner with the Univ. of Bordeaux on different topics).
Building collaborations through the scientific advisory board (SAB)
Some INRA MPs developed their links and relations with international organizations by
undertaking the organization and co-organization of international conferences. This could be
extended more broadly to international workshops and other meetings,
Establishment of longer-term communities of practice (CoPs) that bring together like-minded
organizations working on similar topics (such as climate change or trans-boundary zoonoses)
or that use similar tools (e.g., modeling and foresight work). CoPs give the opportunities to
share costs and expertise, if the CoP is co-established by members who embrace the CoP as an
opportunity for mutual benefit.
Post-doc exchanges
Building of international research networks (e.g. AgriTerris in Argentina, Brazil).
Big, ambitious international initiatives encompassing Joint research units that share governance
and funding. While being promising, it needs to raise extra funds but also allow co-design, to
seek alignment with partners which have pre-existing initiatives.
International Metaprograms could target cross-sectoral, multi/trans-disciplinary activities, linking first
MPs before identifying key topics/issues that might require international input. The process of MP
internationalization should proceed through benchmarking with partners who have linked interests and
undertakings, to identify shared needs in research and learning actions. It will require alignment with
SDGs, organization of potential international partners, compromising between local/regional priorities.
Success will depend on the topic area shared between MPs and international partners, whether it is
strategic or not for both or if the added-value is clear and significant. It might work better where science
is very productive, explosive areas like MEM. Successful cases might exist in other places, in specific
areas like pest management, low-C farming or in knowledge sharing (i.e. working with supermarkets
and retailers to change eating habits), global sourcing of ideas (e.g. international network on food loss
and waste).
53
From meta-programs to open innovation and participatory research
Bezner Kerr R., Professor, Cornell University, [email protected]
Barbier M., INRA, LISIS, [email protected]
1. The scope and matters of issues of participation research and open innovation at INRA
“Participatory science and research” has received recognition by INRA, including a definition in the
national charter of INRA in March 2017 following the Houllier’s report (Houllier & Merilhou-Goudard,
206). This approach ensures that various forms of scientific knowledge production involves actors of
the civil society, individually or as a group or even institutions actively and deliberately in research
processes. It covers a large spectrum of approaches from crowdsourcing to joint building of research
projects and many methods and toolbox. Similarly, “Open innovation” (Chesbrough, et al., 2014)
addresses situations where the organizational process of creating novelty (in products, services, business
models, or technology) doesn’t just rely on one internal knowledge sources and capabilities (such as
R&D division of firms) but also involves unintended contributions of multiple sources to source
innovation process (such as customer feedback, published patents, competitors, external agencies, public
policy, etc.). Open innovation in the public sector raises is particularly important (Osborne and Brown
2013).
In the age of open science and open data, responsible innovation and sustainability transitions, these two
definitions have many cross overs. Thus, new matters of issues are raised for a research institution like
INRA, and for many other institutions facing societal challenges in knowledge production. The
organizational matrix of MPs that are positioned on demanding scientific breakthroughs, might enable
participatory research and open innovation more frankly since stakeholders’ participation become a
critical component of an impact-oriented approach that blends theory, conventional observation,
experimentation and ‘natural experiments’. This new trend prorogates the recognition of various modes
of doing research in open society (Gibbons, 1994) and the acknowledgement that the effects of
sustainability challenge on agronomic research in France (Godard & Hubert, 2002) have to be frankly
invested.
Nonetheless outreach in some MP is still pretty limited at that stage, despite research groups and INRA
having shown policy and programming tools in the past with remarkable achievements. Some
challenging lines of action are taking place at the present (innovative Design Initiative, Participatory
Research Mission, research units implications), stakeholders involvement are also at stake at
institutional level and the Open Science / Open Access initiative convokes new demanding changes in
research practices.
Therefore, open issues are pending: What does participatory research and open innovation mean for
MP? How to adapt and apply existing instruments and tools to MP? What could be developed
specifically in the frame of MP?
2. A synthetic journey
The definitional matters of Scientific practices with others
When scientists enter discussions about participation and innovation in relation to research challenges,
as has been the case in some MPs, definitional concerns are immediately raised: disciplines contributing
in the same project (multi-disciplinarity), disciplines collaborating on the same object (inter-
disciplinarity), and between disciplines in collaboration with other actors on a given challenge (trans-
54
disciplinarity). Interdisciplinarity was at the heart of the research dynamic of MPs (encounter between
disciplines, rich exchange on common issues, new achievements on research object). Trans-disciplinary
must include multi-actor networks and stakeholders to address a societal problem not just a research
question and hence participatory approaches. The welcoming of diversity and heterogeneity of situations
and objectives differs from the standard approach of disciplinary work. It remains a demanding
challenge for MP, since it might reframe the building of scientific questions, the theory in use and new
exogenous knowledge.
The Variety of Stake-Holders
When talking about a cultural change in research with the transdisciplinarity challenge, the term
stakeholder becomes problematic: does it include funders, users, groups? How to establish relevant
relation to civil society in order to open-up the black box? How nevertheless not drop out public policy
and public engagement at large?
A first recommendation coming from discussion in this session converge on the idea that ‘stakeholders’
are not an undifferentiated group, and must be acknowledged according to their diversity. Therefore the
inclusion of SHs in committees is certainly questioning their representativeness. A second point was
made about the ways stakeholders or engaged actors represent a powerful means to establish links to
new data, new fields of enquiry but researchers must be careful with this path-dependency. A third point
was also to consider that stakeholders have possibly multiple roles in the research journey; they can be
users, become partners and ending as clients! A last point was made about the numerous digital
communities and the generational turn with digital use and datafication of farming practices.
A participant: this end-user driven approach – try to capture the needs and then go back to the end user
– has been tested already. Assembling knowledge, innovation communities and problems is quite
difficult to do, but sometimes scientists get back together, propose something, which has not been
challenged at the beginning. True participatory approach is not to think about committees involved at
the beginning and the end, but instead thinking in terms of co-design, co-implement and co-evaluate.
And this is very difficult.
The conditions and responsibilities of being engaged with Stakeholders
Involving stakeholders in research activities or involving researchers in the treatment of a weak problem
supposes that the reason for integrating people have been discussed and clarified. It means that
appropriate settings in terms of goals and duration have to be set up. Sustaining ambition, dialogue and
engagement request then time and peer-acknowledgement. The heterogeneity of situation leads to
different ways of organizing stakeholders’ involvement and participation, and all engaged-parties have
to be precise with the elicitation of condition and expectations. This brings into light that they are
multiple ways of doing research, also in participatory research, citizen science and partnership research.
A participant: To go from research and discovery to impacts take time. Involving SHs needs time; there
is no precise solution and process in the time span of research activities to face this problem. Therefore
it is important not to look at immediate problems but to envision futures and problems; and then
deciphers what kind of pathways it points out. This is our responsibility to choose the right time horizon.
The Variety of Participatory and innovative settings
As far as disciplinarity is concerned, the process of bridging disciplines together in close connection
with SHs, leads to the activation and management of different types of research process organizing.
55
There are multiple examples, like open-air experimental zone, Living Lab and TIGA settings; critical
zones and others. This variety of doing research is thus already at play, and the attention to foster
exploration as much as exploitation in research management is more and more obvious.
INRA started to propose various mechanism to enter more proactively in this area of engaged and
relevant research which propose to develop the capacity of scientists to explore breaking through issues
(IDEAS Ecole chercheur, Citizen Science; ALLISS consortium)
3. Conclusion
This framework of trans-disciplinarity has convoked discussion and paradoxical visions are at play in
research communities of INRA: on the one end some think that scientists have turned into “service
providers” of knowledge, on the other hand some think that a change in paradigm of science is needed
to achieve new goals. Since MPs would offer the opportunity to explore these types of exposure of
researchers in transdisciplinarity and of course reflect about it: taking that risk is worthy with MPs, but
reasonably also in any other type of research activities at INRA. Whether this exploration of
interdisciplinary participatory research could request or lead to a paradigmatic change is almost another
question. For sure, MPs might easily offer incentives to empower exploration of this type or research,
while still supporting rigorous scientific production at the international level.
References
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West J. (Eds.), (2014). New Frontiers in Open Innovation, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gibbons M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary
Societies. London, Sage
Godard, O., & Hubert, B. (2002). Le développement durable et la recherche scientifique à l’INRA. Rapport
intermédiaire de mission. Paris (France): Inra éditions.
Houllier, F., & Merilhou-Goudard, J. B. (2016). Les sciences participatives en France: Etats des lieux, bonnes
pratiques et recommandations. Les sciences participatives en France (2016).
Osborne, S.P. and Brown L. (eds). 2013. Handbook of Innovation in Public Services. Northampton, MA: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
56
New frontiers and new visions
57
Bioeconomy and Circular Economy: transformation of agriculture and
industries toward sustainability
Joachim von Braun
Center for Development Research, Bonn University, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn.
Concept of Bioeconomy and Circular Economy
The vision of bioeconomy is an economic system that fosters harmony between people and environment
in the long run. More than 40 countries have newly adopted bioeconomy-related policy strategies in the
past decade. The bioeconomy is mainly driven by the recent advances in microbiology leading to
process- and product innovations, by shifting consumer preferences toward sustainability, and by the
needs to address resource constraints related to climate, water, energy, and land. Agriculture and the
food system are transforming while becoming embraced by the emerging bioeconomy (von Braun
2015). New opportunities are arising for agricultural development in a bioeconomy, but bioeconomy
strategies need to also address conflicting goals. To tap these opportunities, science policy must generate
accelerated innovations, and resource protection policies need to enhance sustainable utilization of land,
water and biodiversity.
Being a new concept, it is not surprising that no generally accepted definition of “bioeconomy” emerged
right away. A widely used definition by German Bioeconomy Council is partly vision and partly reality,
saying bioeconomy is the production and utilization of biological resources (including knowledge) to
provide products, processes and services in all sectors of trade and industry within the framework of a
sustainable economy (El-Chichakli et.al 2016). This means, bioeconomy is much more than using
biomass for energy. It embraces the sustainable management of ecological systems, and understands
land, forests, and soils as fragile resources that provide wealth through products and ecosystem services.
It learns from nature by employing biomimicry and biological processes; it utilizes biosciences to
transform established economic sectors, such as chemical industries, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and
construction into sustainable ones.
“Bioeconomy” belongs to a family of new terminologies, but is not synonymous with “circular
economy” and “green economy”, and these three should not be used interchangeably. Bioeconomy is
basically circular if based on sustainable use of natural resources and processes, and thus significantly
contributes to a “circular economy”, which also includes re-use of any materials. Bioeconomy and
circular economy shall facilitate intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth that allows transition
toward a “green economy”, the latter being a broader and fuzzier concept than bioeconomy and circular
economy. All three - bioeconomy, circular economy and green economy - are not sectors of the
economy but penetrate and engage with many sectors, and entail behavioral change in consumption, too.
Bioeconomy does not only focus on optimal resource flows and resource management, but aims for
societal transformation and a “biologization” of industrial and agricultural processes and of the economy
with new products and solutions that facilitate a sustainable humanity. Such “biologization of the
economy” addresses both, the efficient use of biological resources in the production of materials and
products, and the sustainable use of renewable biological raw material instead of fossil carbon sources
for industrial processes.
58
Theory and Measurement
The basic theoretical underpinnings of bioeconomy can be explored through the lens of economics of
induced innovation, where innovations result from factor scarcities and related expected price changes
(i.e., prices of land, water, carbon dioxide (CO2), and energy). A conceptual framework for the
economics of bioeconomy must pay attention to the key role of knowledge components and their
endogenous nature.
There are examples and components of bioeconomy, which use very little biomass, such as bio-
pharmaceuticals, and also those components of bioeconomy that use significant amounts of biomass,
and those are changing the competition for food, land, and water. A food security-sensitive bioeconomy
requires new biomass types with low resource requirements, cascading re-use systems, as well as end-
product innovations, even unrelated to existing biomass production, such as in-door farming like
hydroponics. At the core of the economics of bioeconomy are systems thinking with a comprehensive
attention to externalities and transaction costs.
Measuring the bioeconomy is not just about showing if the bioeconomy is big or small, but should serve
stakeholders to track how the bioeconomy develops, and identify causalities in relation to investments,
policy changes, and underlying driving forces. Measurement should not only inform the evolution of
the bioeconomy across different sectors, but ultimately about economic and well-being related
outcomes. Measurement is complex, because bioeconomy evolves in a global change context of
digitization, globalization, urbanization, science evolution, and changing preferences, which makes it
partly endogenous to these forces. Furthermore, bioeconomies evolve and are driven by diverse policy
strategies.
Several approaches may be used for measuring the bioeconomy, but each needs to be scrutinized
regarding measurement of what and how (Wesseler and von Braun 2017). Considering bioeconomy as
being of a pervasive nature, not a sector - but more like digitalization - calls for outcome measures rather
than sectorial measurement or measurement of products’ bio-contents. Outcomes would include reduced
carbon emissions, sustainability of water, soil and biodiversity improvements, measured each in
technical and economic ways including non-price measurement approaches, but also well-being
outcomes such as health improvements (e.g., reduced air pollution, people’s actual health related to
environmental factors) and improved amenities, such as greener cities. While outcome measurement of
bioeconomy can satisfy economic theory and people’s preferences it is obviously the most demanding.
Emerging Frontiers of Bioeconomy
The emerging frontiers of bioeconomy are in the interlinkages of biosciences with digitization. The early
applications actually are with precision farming and digital monitoring in crops and animal production,
in wells and in soils on farms and even more so in processing. Furthermore, the parallel advances in
bioscience (gene editing) and robotics may be the next frontier, as is already showing in bio-based
(neural)-computers, DNA-chips (instead of silicon based).
Bioeconomy will not unfold its transformational potentials globally if pursued in isolation by rich
countries. Sharing new bioeconomy knowledge from science systems of rich countries with developing
countries and support for adaptation to local circumstances is a necessary global collective action. The
bioeconomy opportunities are broad and fast expanding due to its three driving forces: technology
innovations, changed preferences, and resource constraints. Given the large bioresource base in
59
developing countries, and the connection of large numbers of low-income rural households and farmers
to it, an equitable and food security-sensitive bioeconomy policy must involve them in a sustainable
bioeconomy strategy.
Bioeconomy must be studied in a context of much larger changes of societal, technological, and
economic transformations. It is an opportunity and a challenge for governments, scientists of many
disciplines, inventors, and small and large businesses, including farmers, and environmental social
entrepreneurs. The essence of such transformational strategies are not only technological (new science)
and behavioral (adjusted consumption), but the central issue may very well be institutional, i.e.,
providing the regulatory frameworks and long-term incentives for industry and consumers, both at
national and international levels. Those frameworks have been developed for agriculture over the past
and bioeconomy policies may build upon this experience.
References
El-Chichakli B, von Braun J, Lang C, Barben D, Philp J. (2016) Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy.
Nature 535, 221–223.
Global Bioeconomy Sumit. (2015) http://gbs2015.com/home/ von Braun J. (2015). Bioeconomy - Science and
Technology Policy to Harmonize Biologization of Economies with Food Security. In The Fight Against Hunger
and Malnutrition (Ed. D Sahn) pp. 240-262. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Wesseler, J, and von Braun, J (2017). Measuring the Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies. Annual Review of
Resource Economics. Vol. 9:275-298 (October 2017).
60
Towards a Zero Plastic Bio-Economy
Professor Nathalie GONTARD
UMR IATE, INRA, UM, Bat 31, Pl. P Viala, 34060 Montpellier, France. [email protected]
Keywords
Persistent plastic, recycling, circular economy
Every year we use and discard the equivalent of our body weight in plastic, 90% of which will be
released and will remain in our environment long after we have disappeared (Thompson et al. 2009).
Food and agricultural sectors consume most short usage duration and single use plastics (e.g. a
few hours only for fresh foods), almost half of the total plastic production (more than 40% for food
packaging, the largest sector of plastic application, and agriculture more than 5%) and constitute the
bulk of the plastics already dispersed in the environment (Ellen Mc Arthur foundation, 2015). Plastic
was a remarkable petrochemical discovery in the 1960s. They have revolutionised everyday life in all
sectors: construction, the automotive industry, electronics and, above all, the food industry, where, when
used as a lightweight, inexpensive packaging material, plastic has led to enormous progress in terms of
food safety. Plastic packaging is indeed the essential element in preventing external contamination
(chemical or microbial), preserving quality and product traceability as well as reducing losses and waste
by protecting our food.
Today, providential plastic has turned into a time bomb, with the revelation of its long-term effects on
health and the environment. It is accused of contaminating our food and polluting our environment.
Petro-chemical plastic is persistent and 90% ends up in our environment where it will degrade into
micro- and nano-particles in a few hundred years. Plastic particles have already been detected in
many foods, including tap water. Once they reach the micro and nanometric size, they have the
ability to diffuse everywhere, even from landfilling stations where they accumulate, up to the organs
of living beings (including humans) where they are expected to accumulate and lead to potential
dysfunctions.
Most efforts are currently focused on intensive recycling to kill two birds with one stone: both to solve
the environmental issue and to develop a plastic waste economy. However, recycling aligns with circular
economy principles if, and only if, it is a closed loop recycling i.e. the recycled material is similar to the
virgin one. Closed loop recycling is applicable to only a few percentage of specific plastic (e.g. PET
bottles, Barthelemy et al. 2014). Widespread recycling is a range of open-loop processes, usually
called “down cycling” that just postpones, but not eradicates, the emission of plastic waste in the
environment, as the resulting material is partially degraded and not recyclable anymore to produce the
same product.
It is important to know that recycling is only part of a circular economy if the loop can be reproduced
infinitely, which is virtually the case for glass or metal. Biodegradable materials are a natural part of
the biological cycle of organic matter, which ensures unlimited renewal.
The recycling of plastic does not therefore represent a step towards saving our earth's ecosystem from
the potential harm of waste, even if it can modestly contribute to delaying it.
Eco-efficient actions have still to be developed urgently in this sector to stop the indiscriminate use of
persistent plastic and start changing agricultural and food practicing for alternative eco-friendly
ones.
61
There is only one solution: to rethink the entire cycle of plastic materials in the more general context of
a circular bio-economy where the future of waste will be a key element in our consumption choices.
And coordinate our efforts internationally, because small particles of waste do not respect borders.
The ban on putting plastic waste in landfills, sending it instead to be recycled or incinerated (although
this option is not recommended and requires a purification stage) is a first step (EC resolution
3016/C482/09) .
Further measures are expected and must be immediately and wholeheartedly supported: (1) effectively
reduce our plastic consumption by consuming plastics differently and consider phasing them out of the
market1 (2) replace plastics wherever possible with biodegradable alternatives (not to be confused with
bio-sourced or compostable products) provided this does not have a negative impact on agricultural
production for human consumption and does not harm the environment and (3) only retain irreplaceable
plastics that are effectively recycled in a closed loop, as is potentially the case for PET bottles.
References
Barthélémy E., Spyropoulos D., Milana M.R., Pfaff K., Gontard N., Lampi E., Castle L. 2014. Safety evaluation
of mechanical recycling processes used to produce polyethylene terephthalate (PET) intended for food contact
applications Journal: TFAC: Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. Vol 31(3) 490-497.
Thompson et al. 2009 Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. B 364
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-
plastics
Dechets plastiques dans l'environnement - Resolution du Parlement europeen du 14 janvier 2014 sur une strategie
europeenne en matiere de dechets plastiques dans l'environnement (2013/2113(INI)) (2016/C 482/09)
1 http://www.socialter.fr/es/module/99999672/449/non_la_surconsommation_de_bouteilles_plastiques_nest_pas_irrmdiable_
62
Innovations to integrate the environment and health in agri-food systems
Shenggen Fan
1201 Eye Street, NW - Washington, DC - 20005-3915 USA. www.ifpri.org. [email protected]
Introduction
The world has achieved tremendous progress in improving food security and nutrition. The proportion
of undernourished people fell from 14.7 percent to 10.6 percent between 2000 and 2015, and the
prevalence of child stunting dropped from 40 percent to 23 percent from 1990 to 2015 (FAO 2017).
Agri-food systems have been key to this progress.
However, agri-food systems are at the heart of several global health and sustainability crises (Gakidou
2016 and Rockström et al. 2009). After a period of prolonged decline, world hunger is on the rise,
millions of children are still too short for their height, and nearly two billion adults are overweight or
obese (FAO 2017). These different forms of malnutrition have become one of the leading causes of
disease in the world. Moreover, the global agri-food system faces emerging trends and challenges,
including rapid urbanization, changing diets for more and better food, rising inequalities, and food safety
concerns (IFPRI 2017). At the same time, agri-food systems contribute to environmental degradation
and climate change, as they use nearly 85 percent of the world’s fresh water and emit about one-fifth of
all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Rosegrant et al. 2009, Arndt et al. 2016).
Agri-food systems have the potential to face these challenges and ensure food security and nutrition
while delivering on broader development goals, such as employment, women’s empowerment, and
beyond. To do so, a new food system that delivers on human and planetary health is needed. Innovations
to agri-food systems in technologies, policies, and institutions will be critical.
Innovations to agri-food systems
Technological innovations that achieve multiple wins will be critical. Yield-enhancing and conservation
technologies such as remote sensing, precision agriculture, and no-tillage have shown measured impacts
on productivity and efficient use of natural resources, and evidence on nutrition-technologies such as
biofortification has shown to measurably improve human health and nutrition. Farmer-led innovations
such as planting basins can also be critical in reducing the duration of food shortages and saving scarce
resources.
New and potentially transformative technologies show promise. Alternative proteins such as lab-grown
meat can help reduce agricultural GHG emissions and resource use; gene editing for seed improvements
can produce more crops and improve nutrition outcomes; big data and analytics can lower transaction
costs and mitigate risk for farmers; and blockchain can enable traceability and transparency along the
food chain. However, these technologies should be scaled up with careful consideration for their impact
on smallholders, children’s nutrition, and employment.
Policy innovations are also critical as they can help more effectively prioritize both human health and
the environment. Governments should eliminate subsidies of nutrient-poor foods and convert those
63
funds to investments for more nutritious crops such as fruits and vegetables. Subsidies for agricultural
inputs can also lead to overuse of inputs and natural resources, exacerbating land degradation and
emitting more greenhouse gases. These subsidies should be better-targeted so that they have greater
returns in terms of economic efficiency, nutrition and natural resource use—or could provide direct
income or productive support for vulnerable groups, including smallholders, women, and youth.
Moreover, taxing emissions-intensive foods such as meat could reduce GHG emissions, increase the
efficiency of natural resources, and avoid hundreds of thousands of deaths, as such foods are associated
with dietary and weight-related risk factors (Springmann et al. 2017). However, such taxes should only
be considered for wealthy countries that already consume too much meat. Innovations in financing, such
as blended finance between development partners and the private sector, as well as carbon markets, can
provide capital for multistakeholder and multiple-win investments.
Institutional innovations can create the enabling environment for policies and technologies to have
broad, inclusive impact. Land reform is critical to strengthen resource rights, especially of women.
Evidence shows that land registration for women in Rwanda increased the likelihood that farmers will
undertake longer-term investments for sustainability, such as soil conservation (Meinzen-Dick et al.
2017). Inclusive marketing chains should be supported, especially those that link stallholders to modern
agri-food value chains—as was done with India’s improved dairy chain, which boosted production and
quality of milk through cooperatives, chilling plants, refrigerated transport, and other improvements to
the value chain (Cunningham 2009).
Institutional accountability must also be strengthened by promoting effective governance mechanisms
that use data to enhance monitoring. For example, the Africa Agriculture Transformation Scorecard
provides accountability by tracking progress of commitments made through the Malabo Declaration to
improve livelihoods by transforming agriculture. Lastly, the global development community should
promote science and evidence on food systems. A scientific platform for food systems akin to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could provide the basis for food system
transformation at a global level.
Conclusion
Agri-food systems must be transformed to end hunger and malnutrition, especially by 2030, the deadline
articulated in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Innovations in technologies, policies, and
institutions will be critical to reshape food systems for nutrition, health, inclusion, and sustainability. To
develop and implement these innovations to ensure no one is left behind, it will be critical to bring
together the many sectors and actors involved in ensuring food security and nutrition. Global
cooperation will be key to ensure that innovations to food systems are widely disseminated and
contribute positively to global development.
References
C. Arndt, S. Msangi, and J. Thurlow, "Green Energy: Fueling the Path to Food Security," in 2016 Global Food
Policy Report (Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2016): 56–65.
Cunningham, Kenda. 2009. Connecting the milk grid: Smallholder dairy in India. In Millions Fed: Proven
successes in agricultural development. Spielman, David J.; Pandya-Lorch, Rajul (Eds.). Chapter 17 Pp. 117-124.
Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
64
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural
Development), UNICEF, WFP (World Food Programme), and WHO (World Health Organization, The State of
Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017 (Rome: 2017); Development Initiatives, Global Nutrition Report
2017: Nourishing the SDGs (Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives, 2017).
E. Gakidou, "Global, Regional, and National Comparative Risk Assessment of 84 Behavioural, Environmental
and Occupational, and Metabolic Risks or Clusters of Risks, 1990–2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2016," Lancet 390, no. 10100 (2016): 1345–1422; J. Rockström, W. Steffen, K. Noone,
et al., "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity," Ecology and Society 14, no. 2
(2009): 32.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2017. 2017 Global food policy report. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi.org.10.2499/9780896292529
Ruth M., A. Quisumbing, C. Doss, S. Theis, “Women's land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: Framework
and review of available evidence,” Agricultural Systems, 2017.
M. W. Rosegrant, C. Ringler, and T. Zhu, “Water for Agriculture: Maintaining Food Security under Growing
Scarcity,” Annual Reviews 34 (2009): 205–222.
M. Springman, D. Mason-D’Croz, S. Robinson, K. Wiebe, H. C. J. Godfray, M. Rayner, and P. Scarborough,
“Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities” Nature Climate
Change volume 7, pages 69–74 (2017) doi:10.1038/nclimate3155
65
Healthier and more sustainable food systems.
From diagnosis to participatory design
Dr. Jean Dallongeville, Head Human nutrition division, INRA
By 2050, 70% of the world’s inhabitants will live in cities, which is creating significant and pressing
challenges for the development of sustainable food production systems. As urbanization and sprawl
increase, questions are being raised regarding food supply chains. The spatial clustering of food
production, processing, and distribution has major impacts on the environment, regional social and
economic development, human health, and production conditions. Ensuring the health of food
production systems is a priority. The different food production models all have both positive and
negative effects on human nutrition, food safety in the production chain, and the environment. Some
of these effects have yet to be characterized; others are well described, but action is required to reduce
chemical and biological risks, limit exposure, or improve nutritional safety. The whole production chain
is involved: from farms to processing and distribution plants to consumer’s choices and nutrition.
So far, much of the research carried out at INRA was at the interface between nutrition, epidemiology,
economy, sociology, food technology, environment and agriculture sciences… For instance, a number
of studies have analyzed the convergence-divergence interactions among diet quality, health,
environmental and economic dimensions, consumer preferences for more "sustainable" regimes,
acceptance of “sustainable" food products (willingness to pay), different public policies to promote the
adoption of more sustainable consumption behaviors (recommendations, information, tax policies ...),
the relative contribution of changes in diets versus changes in production methods (eg organic vs.
conventional), but also laboratory work on properties of novel more “sustainable” food products and
eco-conception of food products.
In the future, new opportunities to develop more sustainable food production systems may arise as a
result of original research programs and large quantities of data, will made possible by advances in
information and communication technologies. Thought must also be given to how food is created and
how food quality is determined. In the future, new production conditions will result in more variable
and more diverse agricultural commodities. Several factors promise to improve current methods for
processing, storing, and distributing food. These include more efficient energy and water use, waste
reduction, and the repurposing of byproducts. Consumers will also play a role, as they come to cast a
more critical eye on the quality of their food and how it is produced. The economic competition between
different industries may also influence outcomes. Industrial methods will need to change in response to
these new circumstances; at the same time, processes will become more cost-effective and will operate
at different scales that allow greater adaptability. New regional and economic organizations may be
created. New paradigms need to be address combining data from scientific communities including
health, agriculture, food and environmental sciences, as the scientific literature remains silos (Figure).
66
Figure 1.
Bibliographic analysis ( ) of the Health, Food, Environment and Agriculture Nexus.
To this end INRA endorse the Health Food Agriculture Environment Nexus & the Food System
approach as conceptual framework to the development of its future priorities to bridge the divide
between agriculture, health, environment and food systems, connecting ecological drivers and health
risks, assessing health impacts in their socio-economic context, modelling the complex food systems
and opening science. A number a key goals are set that will need further refinement such as the future
metaprograms will evolve:
Design and impact assessment of food chains (MP GloFoodS)
• Efficient natural resource management (land, water, soil…)
• Agro-ecology and food quality from farm to fork (and vice-versa) (MP EcoServ)
• Indicators (incl. health) and tools for sustainability assessment and traceability
• Modelling impacts of food processing on global food security, land use and the environment
• Bioeconomy-based food systems for an optimal management of local resources (MP GloFoodS)
• One health across kingdoms (MP GISA)
• Chemical and food exposure, toxome and predictive toxicology
• Zoonotic infections, resistance to antibiotics, foodborne disease risks
• Microbial ecosystems (soil, plant, animal, food, human) (MP MEM)
Sustainable food systems and healthy diets:
• Food choices and preferences, dietary patterns and eating behaviours (incl. exercising) (MP
DIDIT)
• Nutritionally sustainable diets for specific populations
• Peri-urban food systems (incl. developing countries, MP GloFoodS)
• Assessing nutrition/environment/agriculture/health public policies
Environment,Toxocology,Chemistry
Agriculture,Vegetalbiology
Publicpolicies,geosciences,geography
Health,Endocrinology,Neuro-behaviorMedicalsciences,Publichealth,microbiology
67
• Modelling impacts of food systems on global food security, health, land use and the environment
Bridging the divide between agriculture and health / environment and food
• Connecting ecological drivers and health risks
• Assessing health impacts in their socio-economic context
• …
• Opening science: multidisciplinary; data; partnership; citizen science
• Vision: towards modelling of complex food systems
68
Knowledge-based agricultural and food policies
Charlina Vitcheva
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium.
[email protected] https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
Abstract
Modelling, economic and biophysical analyses support the assessment and design of the Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP). Key technological developments contribute to a simpler CAP that improves
policy performance. Knowledge advances enhance the sustainability of agriculture, better linking what
we know, to what we grow and how we grow it. Knowledge fosters a resilient agricultural sector and
bolsters environmental care and climate action, contributing to the EU environmental and climate
objectives.
Keywords
Common Agricultural Policy, knowledge, evidence-based policy, modelling, economics, sustainability.
Introduction
Knowledge is essential to support all aspects of agricultural and food policies, so that they are better
informed by evidence. The recent Communication on "The Future of Food and Farming” (European
Commission 2017) highlights the many challenges that the future Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
must tackle. The CAP must achieve several important goals jointly, including fair income support and
increased market reward for farmers, and sustainability. The new CAP must also provide a new and
simpler delivery model and be smarter, modern and sustainable plus care for the global dimension and
contribute to EU environmental and climate objectives.
Research and innovation is essential to support the assessment of current policies and the preparation of
the future CAP. The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) performs economic analyses
of the sector and of its value chains. It also assesses the effects of international trade and monitors yields.
As new technology develops and becomes more widely accessible, it as well supports smart CAP
implementation.
Part I – Modelling, economic and biophysical analyses to support the CAP 2020+
Modelling facilitates joint evaluation and improvement of the social, economic and environmental
elements of the CAP. JRC recently published the SCENAR2030 report (M’barek et al. 2017), which
presents the results of scenario assessments of future agricultural and food policies. This work includes
a reference scenario and three stylised hypothetical scenarios (cuts in direct payments, trade
liberalisation and an environmental focus), plus assesses the impacts on markets, land use, the
environment and farmers' income.
69
The vulnerability of small farms is highlighted, in particular in marginal areas. A weaker bargaining
position may lead to market disadvantages. These analyses back future legislative action to address
unfair trading practices, market transparency and opportunities for farmers’ cooperation. While trade
liberalisation would create opportunities for some agri-food sectors, it poses risks for most of them.
Specific sectors can suffer from full trade liberalisation. A full assessment highlights substantial
opportunities for certain commodities (e.g. for dairy or wine) and sensitivities for others (e.g. for beef
or poultry), informing necessary strategies.
Part II – Technological advances for a smarter, simpler CAP, with improved performance
Many recent technological advances have great potential to improve policy implementation. They can
make it simpler, more effective and more efficient. Personal handheld devices and smartphones, high-
speed internet, cloud processing and free satellite imagery can all assist farmers, both in the field and in
administrative tasks. These technologies cater for improved data capture, more detailed impact
assessment, an extensive degree of automation, more targeted advice, etc. JRC issues technical guidance
primarily to Member States' administrations that helps structure all components for interoperability.
Since 2017, all beneficiaries of CAP support must apply for aid using a geospatial application form.
This opens the way to the more efficient gathering, processing and use of information. The collection of
large amounts of information can also contribute to other policies, with data aggregation and re-use. For
example, Member States can use these data for reporting and accounting on emissions and removals of
greenhouse gases from land use, land use change and forestry in the context of climate change (Bertaglia
et al. 2016). They can harness high quality, up-to-date data to feed into the various needs of
environmental policies, as well as for the provision of farm advice, or to target rural development
measures with an eye to additionality.
Technology can also help reconcile improved performance with demands for simplification. The
advanced application of new technology can enable automated processes and decisions. This favours a
move from the current control mechanisms, based on sampling, to a new, more flexible monitoring
system - a paradigm shift in CAP implementation. Automation can lower the administrative burden for
the farmer and the administration, while keeping the assurance at the current level.
Part III – Advancing knowledge to improve the sustainability of agriculture
The Communication on “The Future of Food and Farming” also focuses on the environmental
performance of agriculture. The CAP has already improved its contribution to environmental objectives,
yet there is a clear need for more. Here too, knowledge is essential. Some environmental impacts can be
directly measured or estimated from farm data (e.g. nitrogen surplus). Others are delayed in space (e.g.
water quality) or in time (e.g. soil organic carbon), or are generally more difficult to assess (e.g.
biodiversity on farms). Building farm-level indicators may thus require the use of proxies. This
commands robust scientific evidence on cause-effect links between farming practices and their
environmental impacts.
Examples of JRC work to improve knowledge on the impact of farming on the environment include
work on, for example, soil carbon sequestration, soil erosion and biodiversity. Besides the farm level,
JRC studies the whole food chain, e.g. reducing food waste or dietary changes, and the whole
agroecosystem. It assesses the health and environmental effects of reduced meat and dairy consumption
70
(Westhoek et al. 2015). It also works on modelling and mapping to highlight pollination deficits in EU
regions with crops that are more highly dependent on pollinators (Zulian et al. 2013).
Looking forward, current developments will contribute to future policies. Increasing attention is being
given to agroecology and sustainable agriculture. Agroecology is an approach to design nature-based
solutions and agroecosystems that mimic natural processes, applying ecological principles. Such design
addresses the whole agroecosystem in all its aspects jointly: soil, water, trophic chains of plants, pests
and their predators, biogeochemical cycles, etc. Current work on ecosystem services (e.g. pollination,
pest control), soil carbon matter, soil biodiversity and assessment of the effects of farming practices on
soils, is feeding into this.
Conclusion
The role of knowledge is increasingly recognised as essential to inform policy preparation, targeting,
implementation and evaluation. Current reflections on the CAP post-2020 mirror this. The importance
of knowledge is also evident in improving the position of farmers in value chains and the resilience of
the sector and to manage the global dimension of the CAP. Scientific and technological advances also
enable a shift towards new mechanisms for simpler implementation and the better targeting of measures.
There is obviously a need to further develop the knowledge base. Sharing knowledge is also very
important. Approaches that incorporate scientific evidence into the policy process increase transparency.
Tools based on robust science may help stakeholders to exchange views on a more objective basis.
References
Bertaglia M, Milenov P, Angileri V, Devos W (2016) Cropland and grassland management data needs from
existing IACS sources. Publications Office of the European Union, EUR 28036, Luxembourg. doi:10.2788/132360
European Commission (2017) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2017) 713 final of
29.11.2017.
M’barek R et al. (2017) Scenar 2030 - Pathways for the European agriculture and food sector beyond 2020.
Publications Office of the European Union, EUR 28797 EN, Luxembourg. doi:10.2760/887521
Westhoek H et al. (2015) Nitrogen on the Table: The influence of food choices on nitrogen emissions and the
European environment. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Edinburgh, UK.
Zulian G, Maes J, Paracchini ML (2013) Linking Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for Mapping and Assessment
of Pollination Services in Europe. Land 2, 472–492. doi:10.3390/land2030472
71
Digital agriculture and emerging technologies
Christian Huyghe
INRA, Paris, France. [email protected]
Millennials are very important: in 10 or 15 years from now, they will be more or less 15 % of the leaders
worldwide and they are more linked with the people of the same age in the other countries than with the
older generation in their own country. Anthropologist identified that the connection among this group
is clearly through digital technologies - about which we need to look at for what is going to change for
tomorrow. We have to look at digital as a revolution for agriculture and agrifood systems too, since it
could be a major vector of the 3rd Industrial Revolution, getting the same impact or even a stronger one
than the introduction of machinery or chemistry.
It is a revolution because of its three simultaneous transformations: technical and technological
transformation, organisational transformation, social and societal transformation. It takes place under
two major dimensions: massive production of data and automation. Massive data are becoming
available, increasing participatory approach.
It should meet the following farmers’ expectations: economic performances, environmental
performances, social issues, reduction of farmers’ mental charges and more automation. This can be
branded as agri-foodsystem 4.0. The creation and sharing of benefits are produced thanks to the
increasing connected dimensions. Though several steps, we can foresee how to move from an old-
fashioned tractor to farms connected to agri-food systems (see figure below).
Figure 1. Connected farming evolution
Precision farming (same farming as today with more precision) will better take into account
heterogeneity: local heterogeneity in the field, local heterogeneity within herds of animals (not all
animals have exactly the same status and we must adapt) and adapt both crop management and animal’s
diets. Capturing heterogeneity in the field with small sensors is a good example for crop management.
In order to feed animals, we can use robots; for instance, it is important that the largest pigs of a flock
get all their resources completely covered. If you have the possibility to feed them individually to the
72
exact need, it will strongly reduce the costs and the environmental impacts (when they are overfed, they
are losing many nutrients).
Capturing heterogeneity is also needed through high throughput phenotyping (technologies used at some
INRA experimental units such as a platform in Clermont Ferrand or the Joint technological Unit
CAPTE). The next step is the data fusion as a source of benefits. A nice example comes from the dairy
production: milking robots where you feed the animal according to its need (very common nowadays),
sensors to document the animal welfare and stage (especially calving), information on animal behaviour
and grazing (you can measure whereas they are grazing quickly enough or not), information on the
genotype. Genomic selection is indeed connected: information on the genotypes and their phenotypes
are connected and can be used to find the best progeny. Grass growth monitoring though, is still difficult
to achieve on real time.
Beyond precision farming, we are moving further and observe an emergence of industrial consortia for
integrated on-farm services. It is also important to improve risk management in whole farms. This
system is leading the farmers to move from machine purchase to services purchases. There is a good
example: robots used for mowing grass in vineyards. One year ago, it was necessary to buy those in
order to cut grass, now, the same company has opened a service where you can use the services of a
shepherd of robots taking care of them; the grass is going to be cut when needed. This shows well how
the system is changing. Beyond the farm, new digital tools will help anticipating volumes and qualities
thanks to better prevision, market, and management and give the possibilities to have new insurance
models, according to the ability to predict locally and globally on a real time.
Of course, this will also induce many sociological issues - how to adopt and assure a safe transition -
and it will have a tremendous effect on all the advisory system provided to the farmers and agrifood
systems.
Information and Communation Technologies (ICT) are developed from farm gates to consumers and
this will have consequences on eco-conception and circularity, on safety through the smart packaging,
on quality (improvement to assess the sensory quality, develop user experience and capture information
from the consumer behaviour). It will have of course a social impact on the consumers. This entire social
network across countries will lead to new demands and new propagation of innovations.
A lot of work has been done by INRA in different sectors; on ontology, developing data processing
through artificial intelligence, platforms for model development, and working on proxies and remote
sensing producing large amount of data.
In June 2017, a convergence institute #DigitAg was launched in Montpellier together with two institutes
in Toulouse and Rennes. It is based on 6 priorities axes: understanding ICTs on rural societies,
developing ICT-based innovations: technological, social and legal challenges, promoting development
of sensors and data-acquisition systems, including crowdsourcing, conceiving new agricultural
information systems, conceiving new analytical methods for data mining, exploring new strategic
approach for integrating and qualifying data and models.
What are the research issues and the questions we have to work with? There are plenty of issues on data
(sensors development, including biological and hybrid ones, ontology, database structure and e-
infrastructure (including governance), ownership and stewardship and above all availability and
accessibility (open data and open access system).
Another important research issue is the data processing: artificial intelligence of machine learning,
modelling and management complex systems (integrated system being a road to follow). Plenty of new
possibilities are offered such as levers for diversities of digital agriculture. We should not think that
because of digitalisation there will be more uniformity of agriculture, it is not going to be standardized.
Results will be shared by a huge diversity of agriculture types. We have to think digital agriculture -not
digital in the present agriculture - but digital agriculture, digital agroeconomy and agrifood systems
(4.0). It will also offer new possibilities to have surveys of environmental status through real time
73
indicators. As an example, it is today possible to put a small sensor in an earthworm just to document
what is taking place 30 cm below the soil surface. All this will have consequences on the research
organization, it is important and this is at the core of any metaprogram to revisit interdisciplinarity. New
research operators will be active in this domain and there will be new partnerships.
All the induced societal modifications must be taken into consideration: digital transition through two
intimately related factors will work better prediction and peer-to-peer exchanges for emergence of
collaborative governance through a « multitude » effect. According to Colin and Verdier (2012),
« multitude » is the key word of digitalization transition: crowd becomes a value on which to build
(crowd is a positive externality). One consequence of it is the participatory approach. It will modify the
social network related to agriculture and agri-food. We have to pay attention to the possible fracture and
ensure that every one has access to digital technology.
The challenge is to be able to think agriculture/food research systems for tomorrow. It is going to be
different so we definitively need innovative designs for digital agriculture and food, from precision
farming to digital agriculture. Thinking that future is the direct continuation of present is a mistake, we
must be very creative, and think with the next generation that is going to make this work. The transition
will also induce regulatory issues and public policies, as there is no innovation without a regulatory
policy.
74
Modeling future landscapes of adaptation to climatic and sanitary risks in
European agriculture
Jean-François Soussana
INRA, Vice-Chair for international affairs, Paris, France.
Agriculture production must increase to feed a growing population but needs to contribute to climate
change mitigation and adaptation. Reaching the target agreed under the Paris Agreement requires
net zero emissions from all sectors, including agriculture, before 2050 since the pace of greenhouse gas
emissions reductions is not at a sufficiently high level in the intervening years. Increasingly, attention
will focus on the agricultural sector, as mitigation potential in other sectors is adopted, and as
agriculture’s percentage share of the remaining total increases. Strengthening soil and forestry carbon
sinks, drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and from nitrogen fertilized soils,
reducing food wastes and recycling biowastes, changing food habits towards more healthy and climate
friendly diets offers large opportunities.
The weather-related disasters – heatwaves and cold spells, wildfires, droughts, river and coastal floods
and windstorms – are increasing with climate change causing increases in fatalities and damages to food
and fibre production, as well as biodiversity and terrestrial ecosystems. In the agricultural sector, more
years turn out to be unfavourable due to climate change, which in turn increases crop yield variability
and causes strong changes in prices. Yields of several rainfed crops are levelling off in many European
countries or even decreasing. Projected increases in extreme climatic events are expected to increase
crop yield variability and to lead to yield reductions in the future throughout Europe and in many world
regions. Both water and soil resources will increasingly be in high demand and exposed to rapid
degradation through climate change and other stressors.
Moreover, climate change is projected to have substantial impacts on animal diseases and zoonoses in
Europe, including some that were not previously reported such as the introduction of Schmallenberg
virus in 2011 from Africa or the threat of Rift Valley Fever moving into Europe. Climate change may
increase the presence of vectors such as ticks, mosquitoes and fleas, increasing the threat of transmissible
diseases. In the same way, emerging and reemerging plant pests and diseases are threatening crop
production (e.g. Xylella fastidiosa in the Mediterranean area). Moderate effects of climate change on
food- and water-borne diseases, such as salmonellosis are also foreseen.
Climate proofing EU agriculture requires a long-term vision of a carbon neutral and climate resilient
agriculture sector, which would strongly reduce the damages for production, quality and human health
of climatic hazards and associated sanitary hazards. That means a transformation of current agricultural
systems in a number of EU regions that also need to be compatible with reduced uses of pesticide use
and anti-microbial drugs. This requires advanced and more integrated scientific knowledge and
improved use of information technologies and of big data, especially through open data, modelling,
participatory research and dialog with multiple stakeholders.
Crop and livestock diversification, advanced plant and animal breeding, integrated crop and livestock
protection, soil restoration, ecosystem based adaptation, advanced watershed management, industrial
symbioses supported by advanced digital technologies and participatory research offer transformative
opportunities for climate proofing food systems in Europe and on an international scale. International
cooperation in research, technology and innovation development and deployment, as well as outreach
and education activities will be essential to achieving carbon neutral resilient climate proofed food
75
systems. This is a major challenge given that the agriculture and food sector is in Europe, as in most
world regions, the first economic sector.
Reaching the long-term target of a climate proofed EU agriculture requires substantial scientific and
technical guidance integrating all major dimensions of the challenge (from soil and water resources to
plant and animal health and socio-economics, through crop and livestock systems and landscapes) based
on transdisciplinary research and system’s theories. While substantial research has been performed by
JRC as well as through Framework Programs and Joint Programing Initiatives such as JPIs Climate and
FACCE, state of the art online interactive platforms showing which combinations of agricultural
mitigation and adaptation could provide most environmental, production and economic benefits for a
given region in Europe are still lacking.
Creating the European knowledge hub supporting both agricultural mitigation and adaptation and
integrating for this purpose soil, water, climate, land use and management, GHG emissions and soil
carbon balance, as well as climate change projections, crop and livestock production and product quality
models, plant and animal health hazards and socio-economic indicators is needed. First examples are
provided from the development of a pilot online modelling platform by INRA.
76
New frontiers and new visions through Meta-
Programs
77
New frontiers and new visions on adaptation of agriculture and forest to
climate change, ecosystem services and organic farming
Nathalie Bréda1 and Lucius Tamm2
1 UMR 1434 Silva, Université de Lorraine, Agroparitech, INRA, F-54 280
Champenoux ;[email protected] ; http://www.accaf.inra.fr/en 2 Department of Crop Sciences, Head of Department, Deputy director, FiBL, Ackerstrasse 113, CH-
5070 Frick; [email protected]; http://www.fibl.org/en/team/tamm-lucius-en.html
Abstract
Adaptation of agriculture and forest to climate change, ecosystem services and organic farming are
currently addressed by three devoted INRA Metaprograms (MPs). The discussion suggested two topics
which are not explicitly covered yet: how to rethink agriculture in terms of bioeconomy and how is the
role of digital agriculture addressed? Including the knowledge of actors in the research programs
appeared as a key way for interdisciplinary approaches, especially to quantify the services or to test the
efficiency to cope with climate variability of innovative practices proposed by farmers themselves. The
challenge of addressing short vs. long term economic interests, as well of translating the outcomes of
MPs at local vs. global scales was debated. As a suggestion, taken into consideration the three COP
goals (economic, environmental and territorial) could be an opportunity to change the current scope of
the researches on agro ecosystem management suitable to adapt to climate change and optimise
ecosystem services, and reach trade-offs at various spatial and temporal scales.
Keywords
Bioeconomy; COP; scaling; digital agriculture.
The session “next frontiers and new visions through Metaprograms” was dedicated to adaptation to
climate change, ecosystem services and organic farming and, in a lesser extent, to food. A brief
presentation of the conceptual frameworks and the objectives of the corresponding three MPs launched
the exchanges. Please note that the session only addressed agriculture topics, without any attention to
forest or other ecosystems, probably as a result of the people present in the room. The brainstorming
session was organized around three main questions: is there any gaps in topics covered by AAFCC,
EcoServ and Organic Farming and Food (OF&F) INRA MPs? How do these MPs collaborate in order
to study interfaces? Is there a need to change their current scope to better address current challenges?
Emerging topics not yet covered by MPs
More than gaps in topics, it was pointed out two emerging concepts that were not well defined when the
INRA MPs were launched: the bioeconomy in agro ecosystems or forestry and the digital agriculture.
The way to address these two concepts in the framework of the AAFCC, EcoServ and OF&F have been
debated.
How to rethink agriculture in terms of bioeconomy and not farming systems as such?
78
Paying for services at landscape scale for public goods, commodities is not what we have to produce,
we have to produce food; the downstream research to the consumer is missing and may be included in
close connection with DID’IT MP. The three MPs should joint efforts to address “Transitions of farming
and food systems", including their environmental and economic sustainability.
How is the role of digital agriculture addressed?
First of all, participants recalled that digital agriculture is a tool, there is then no need of creating a
dedicated MP. Several questions raised about the assessment of the potential and the threats of the digital
agriculture to design agricultural systems based on ecological principles and/or adapted to increased
sanitary or climatic risks. Existing monitored data may be used for decision making during crises or to
assess the impact of climate change, as well as for digital communication between farmers and citizen.
Nevertheless, an added value from all the collected data need to be co-constructed between farmers and
scientists. New market models could be developed through digital agriculture.
How to best use the Metaprogram tool to deliver transdisciplinary research that would be best
positioned to answer these grand challenges
Transdisciplinary and innovation
Transdisciplinary research is a focus for all the INRA MPs and there is a need to think about the impacts
of MPs. The actors’ knowledge should be included in MPs in order to co-design solutions, adaptation
strategies, values for services, paths to transitions ... Moreover, research outcomes have to help the
decision makers. Intelligent solutions are needed and will contribute to innovation for agro-ecology and
climatic transition, innovative methods, measurable indicators that farmers can follow by themselves,
in a perspective of ecologisation of agriculture and adaptation to climate change. In other words, is
organic farming a performant, potential way to adapt to climatic and sanitary risks? The main challenge
is to address the impact and interaction of future agricultural coexisting farming systems. The diversity
of systems studied in the three MPs can be combined at territories or national levels. In any cases, they
already coexist and offer contrasted services. Agroecology is a framework that could be used to reconcile
the core topic of each MP. Organic farming is an interesting model to discuss with farmers, improve the
activity by co developing with science; accompany the development by quantifying their choices, help
to decision system; scientific community has to inform farmers about added value of the practices on all
compartments, cross issue of mitigation, pest protection, ecosystem services, traceability of systems,
sensitivity and adaptability of organic farming to climate change.
Scaling in time and space
A difficulty (especially acute in AAFCC) was pointed out: to articulate global changes and global trade,
that shape land-use, with local levels (prices of agricultural products are a major driver of the agriculture
system), to translate the global changes at concrete local action like land use, to establish links between
global markets and local ones: short term business models are quite easy but how to address the long
term, including both private and public money especially for public goods. The goal is what happens
once the adaptation measures are implemented in terms of impacts on ecosystem services for e.g.
Is there any need to change the current scope of MPs to better address great challenges?
More than changing the scope, participants suggest changing the framework to be closer to the actors,
including policy makers. The idea is to take into account what happens out of the field (production steps)
how to give a value to all the circular economy. As a suggestion, one of the great challenge to address
is linked to the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) reform 2014-2020, that identified three challenges
for CAP an economic -(including food security and globalisation, a declining rate of productivity
79
growth, price volatility, pressures on production costs due to high input prices and the deteriorating
position of farmers in the food supply chain), environmental (relating to resource efficiency, soil and
water quality and threats to habitats and biodiversity) and territorial one (where rural areas are faced
with demographic, economic and social developments including depopulation and relocation of
businesses). The discussion was how to take into account these three dimensions when testing adaptation
options or comparing types of agriculture services including organic farming? How to assess the
ecosystem services as a whole in these three components? A systemic approach, coupled to multicriteria
assessments, is already promoted by each MPs, but all dimensions should be found in a wider scope.
Conclusion
Participants mentioned the impressive productions of MPs. INRA MPs already pursue so many
ambitions that there is no need of new MP. Accent should be pointed on transition systems,
transformation from traditional vs. organic agriculture or on current to more resilient agroecosystems to
climatic or sanitary crises, it is important to see what frugal transformation produce as functionality of
agro ecosystems and how to cope with all the steps of transformation. Anyway, better links are welcome
to address some challenges like assessing integrated sustainability of agricultural systems, sectors and
territories, assessing if ecosystems services are impaired or improved by adapted agro ecosystems
(interface between AAFCC and ECOSERV), connecting the community of farmers to user’s benefits
for diet (closer connection with DID’IT) or addressing global challenges with food security in a context
of climate change (AAFCC and GLOFOODS) or comparing properties of contrasting agricultural
systems in terms of plant or animal health and food security (OF&F and GISA or SMACH).
80
NEW FRONTIERS AND NEW VISIONS THROUGH META-
PROGRAMs:
GISA- and SMaCH-MP perspective
Citti Christine1 and Carsten Enevoldsen2
1 INRA, ENVT, UMRIHAP, Toulouse, France. [email protected] 2 [email protected]
Common and specific features of the SMaCH and GISA MetaPrograms (MPs).
Within the concept of One Health-Ecohealth, the GISA and SMaCH MPs share (i) common goals and
vision on the integrated management of animal and plant health, respectively, (ii) large-scale approaches
(One-Health for GISA/Landscape for SMaCH), (iii) the concern of biosecurity and (iv) a management
strategies involving call for projects, networks and workshops. Both MPs funded solution-oriented and
academic research projects, and have identified the need to link biological sciences with biomathematics
and/or with social sciences. One major challenge was to build an interdisciplinary community around
MP major scientific issues and to involve stakeholders in the co-construction. Individual specificities
were directly linked to the objects itself, i.e. plant versus animal or the field versus the herd, which calls
for different approaches towards implementing actions in the field. Overall, the discussion panel saw no
added value in merging the two MPs although some key questions could be addressed together (i.e.
vector transmission…).
What have we learnt?
One common lesson is that it takes time to reach long term ambitions and to build partnership. Yet,
incentive actions are key in building interdisciplinary/transdiciplinarity and a form of “selective
pressure” has to be maintained until a change in culture is embedded. As an example, the last call of the
SAMcH MP was totally opened and resulted in most projects being mono-disciplinary; a situation that
totally contrasted with previous calls where incentive actions had been implemented. Of the question
that often surfaced was the place of academic projects: in INRA division, in MPs? Overall, the
discussion panel agreed that MP’s framework has to evolve and that MPs would benefit from taking
into account projects traditionally conducted within divisions for at least two reasons: (i) to stimulate
young researchers in joining MPs, and thus to revitalize MPs, and (ii) in seeding MPs with academic
sciences for promoting long term objectives. Yet, it is not about merging divisions with MPs but bridges
have to be established.
Do we need a new MP?
To initiate the discussion, an example was taken: there is no MP on sustainable livestock that would
address the question of whether suppressing/reducing meat consumption is the only issue. The panel
debated: is it a question for a new MP, is it a question to address across several MPs or does it fit into
one MP which would have to modify its boundaries. No straight answer came out but slowly a picture
of the MP’s v 2.0 emerged.
81
MP’s v 2.0, what’s next?
It first started with a warning: MP’s 2.0 should not (i) add additional layer on top existing MPs nor (ii)
become super MPs (i. e. too large in scope, size…) or a new “horizontal” division. Interactions between
MPs and INRA-divisions have to be promoted and strong incentive actions are needed to increase the
participation of INRA-staff into MPs. As well, incentive actions have to be strengthened in
implementing a cultural change from mono vs inter/trans-disciplinary: culture beats strategy! MPs
should have a definite life span with a mix of top-down and bottom-up projects. The discussion panel
agreed that MPs should tackle key challenges and explore new domains. Because of their positioning
and interactions with social sciences, stakeholders, society, governmental agencies…MPs would be a
perfect tool to foresee what are the new “terra incognita” and what are the new domains to explore:
MP’s v2.0 as think tanks. MPs were and are still in learning loop (divisions>MPs>INRA>partners), thus
generating a number of unanswered questions such as: do we have all the disciplines or do we need new
ones? Should we instil more academic research into MPs? Or can we move newly acquired competences
into the INRA division?...
Overall, a consensus emerged: We need to explore MPs interfaces and establish bridges between MPs
and between MPs/divisions. MPs v 2.0 should be more dynamics (in scope, in lifespan, in
organization…) and agile (in reactivity) to provide INRA with a research instrument complementary to
current INRA-divisions.
82
Roundtable on « Diets, Health and Food Security”
Adam DREWNOWSKI, University Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
Jean-Michel CHARDIGNY, INRA, Direction du Partenariat et du Transfert pour l’Innovation, Paris.
After an introduction by Alban Thomas, the discussion focused on the best use of MPs to deliver
transdisciplinary research and to address “grand challenges” in science and public policy. Two MPS
under discussion that fully incorporated the social sciences in the research network were:
- Did’it, which addressed the social and behavioral determinants of food choice and their impact
on diets and health;
- GloFoods, which addressed steps and transitions toward global food security.
The three questions that the Roundtable focused on were: (i) Are there significant gaps in the existing
MP topics? (ii) Are there continuing opportunities to change the scope MPs? (iii) How can better
collaboration between MPs be achieved most effectively?
Figure 1 shows some areas of overlap and synergy between the two MPs in how they cover the food
systems continuum. Glofoods started from food production, covering agriculture, livestock and fisheries
to go to food security and nutrition status. By contrast, Did’it covered topics ranging from taste and
consumer food choices to diets and to food and nutrition policies, both public and private. Taken
together, the two MPs address a rich variety of issues ranging from food production and processing to
consumer choice and health outcomes. The two MPs suggest different scales of potential interventions;
whereas GloFoods deals with societal issues, Did’It is more firmly anchored in behaviors of the
individual. Did’It is focused on individual (households, individuals) in developed countries, whereas
GloFoodS is focused on both developed and developing countries, and mostly global level (although it
shares the individual level with Did’It).
Thus a potential merging of the two MPs. combined with adequate resources, would probably allow a
more integrated approach for the future, at local vs global and individual vs aggregated scales. One topic
of interest would be to explore or model how changes in the food supply affect the demand for healthy,
because the other direction, from changes in food diets at the global level, to changes in supply and land
use, are already covered by GloFoodS. Another would be to address the key features of sustainable food
systems, including the impact of agro-ecology on food supply.
Such an organization of the MPs would allow for a better understanding of the complex food systems
pathways leading from agricultural production to animal and human food consumption, human diet
quality and population health. Better communications between researchers in animal and human
nutrition is a prerequisite. One persistent paradox is that we are faced with nutrient-poor food but
nutrient-rich (animal) feed.
One way to organize the concepts would be to take the “farm to fork” approach. Higher-quality data at
a fine level of disaggregation would be required, including data on the nutrient composition of raw and
processed foods. Furthermore, food transportation, distribution and retail should also be taken into
account, notably the global retail system platform. This would permit the MPs to better connect food
supply issues to food consumption and health.
Besides retail, food processing has probably to be better embedded in the strategy, as it is a key player
for food supply. Together with sustainable food supply chain, marketing and prices policy have to be
considered.
83
To conclude, a large single MP on food system could be relevant, considering production to human
health and taking into account global and individual scales, and down- and upscaling issues between
them. This could be discussed with CIRAD, on the international dimension of food systems.
Figure 1.
84
NEW FRONTIERS AND NEW VISIONS THROUGH MP
Selgen and MEM
Didier Boichard [email protected] and Peter Langridge [email protected]
The discussion began with a consideration of the key gaps in the current metaprogram portfolio.
The general conclusion was that the current programs do have the capacity of explore new frontiers in
technology and research and any changes should be based around a consideration of the strengths offered
by INRA and the strengths of the existing metaprograms. This led to the identification of four key
advantages of INRA and the French agricultural research scene. These are:
Access to a diversity of agricultural systems. France supports a wide range of agricultural
activities covering extensive broad-acre farming in difficult and low yielding environments,
highly intensive production systems, high value horticulture and animal production, and food
processing and value adding. In many respects the diversity of agriculture in France is greater
than for any other European country.
Scale and diversity of the country. This relates to the point above but reflects the environmental
diversity in France, from alpine to Mediterranean, high rainfall to arid environments.
Proximity to stakeholders and end-users. INRA’s long history of agricultural research has also
meant that the researchers and divisions have established strong links to the various end users
of INRA technology and scientific advances. This contrasts to many other agricultural research
organisations, such as universities, where the end-user and stakeholder connections are often
tenuous and transitory.
Link between research and real problems, that provides the connection between science and
society. Building on the point above, the long association with stakeholders has worked in both
directions; it has provided a good path for delivery of innovations and a mechanism for end-
users to keep INRA informed of issues and problems that face producers.
The group then examined the role of MEM and SELGEN within the context of these INRA
strengths.
These two metaprograms were generally seen as being technology driven and it was assumed by
the group that this was the reason why they had been brought together in one discussion group. This
perception concerned the partners in MEM and SELGEN since it implied that they were not addressing
significant biological and societal problems. Rather than being technology driven, the two programs
had arisen because researchers lacked the tools and capabilities to address the major biological questions
that were the real focus of their research. When the two MPs began, the researchers were not specialists
in the technologies and they had to develop new partnerships and collaborations to build the new
capability. As a result, these MP have been successful in creating research communities and a new
capacity across divisions
Therefore, these MPs were created to build capability. This capability is now essentially in place
and, consequently, there is the opportunity for the researchers to apply these capabilities to the questions
and issues that motivated the original development of the MPs.
In the discussions, several examples were provided of major problems facing plant and animal
breeding, and food production and processing where the previous technologies were unable to find
solutions.
There was a common theme behind the original motivation for establishing MEM and SELGEN.
The scientists in both metaprograms work on diversity and are exploring existing diversity as a route to
influence and manager future diversity. This is both in the context of the current production
85
environments but also with a view to future scenarios that will be influenced by climate change and the
increasing pressure to reduce inputs, particularly chemical inputs. The technologies now allow the
description and characterisation of diversity in the plant and animal genomes but also in the microbial
populations associated with agricultural production and food processing.
Essentially these two MPs have built a community of practice that required a multidisciplinary
approach to establish new capabilities. Now they need to focus on research questions and industry
outcomes. The new capabilities provide a scope for disseminating new ideas and approaches to address
questions not only from the original research groups but across other programs and divisions in INRA.
These capabilities:
Open the black box of variation in plants, animals and microbial populations that should greatly
enhance understanding of function of the organisms and their interaction with the environment.
Provide tools to understand how genetic variation drives the key outcomes for agriculture and
food production, which are improved traits of farm animals/plants and better health and nutrition
in humans.
Deliver methodologies to fulfil agroecological goals (#3PERF, #CLIMATE, #FOOD,
#BIORES)
The group felt that the capabilities developed in MEM and SELGEN have scope well beyond the
original aims and there will be opportunities for their use in our MPs. Therefore, the group
recommended creating formal links with other MPs. Several relevant links were discussed including:
MEM and Smach / Gisa
Selgen and Smach / Gisa / Accaf
MEM and Selgen : how does variation in the host drive variation in the microbiome and vice
versa
Once this discussion commenced, a large number of opportunities were described. The scope for
broader applications are extensive and it will be important to avoid being too ambitious. New links and
projects should be developed based on research priorities and available resources.
A possible path forward to create greater value from the existing MPs, including MEM and
SELGEN, would be to develop clusters with several MP working together on targeted questions. These
clusters could be developed around joint meetings and joint projects.
86
Findings from IWIM 2018
Christine Cherbut
INRA, 147 rue de l’Université, 75338 Paris Cedex 07, France. [email protected]
Metaprograms (MP) have been founded by Marion Guillou and Guy Riba, then developed by their
successors, François Houllier et Olivier Le Gall, with the idea that closer cooperation between INRA
research divisions and integrated and cross-disciplinary approaches were needed to address the global
challenges facing food systems. The analysis of IWIM scientific board shows that the idea was great
and the operation rather successful, though it can be improved in many ways.
It is up to INRA now to continue the story, on this strong basis and with the aim to increase the scope
and impact of these MP. In this respect, the following findings from IWIM - along 3 main lines: first
science perspectives, second moving forward transdisciplinarity, third monitoring progress and
assessing impact - have been retained. The fourth finding is about the European and international
outreach of MP, which topic has been let to Jean-François Soussana and Philippe Mauguin.
Regarding science perspectives, IWIM 2018 lectures have highlighted the main grand challenges, for
which education, research and innovation are expected to be delivered by the scientific community. As
one of the leading research actors of the area, INRA is fully engaged in operating this knowledge
triangle. INRA strategic orientations through to 2025 are in line with these challenges, in relation with
the UN SDG. These orientations are further programmed in the strategy plan of each scientific divisions,
which develop fundamental and applied research on discipline-specific and complementary frontiers
and in the MP which address transversal goals. The insights provided by the lectures on new frontier
science and by the discussion on the interfaces between MP have highlighted some tracks that will help
INRA identify where MP should focus on in the next future. In addition, last year, INRA initiated
scientific foresight studies on five interdisciplinary topics, which should cross-check these tracks and
provide with further specified questioning.
These five topics are:
the agroecology transition, with ambitions such as annual growth of 0.4% in the soil carbon
stocks, digital farming or toward chemical pesticide-free agriculture;
the future of livestock farming, with ambition such as a carbon neutral livestock sector;
health connections between food systems and environment, with for instance the microbiome
revolution to prevent and treat human, animal and plant diseases;
territorial bioeconomy, with ambition such as zero waste;
predictive approaches in biology and ecology, with the ambition of enhanced understanding of
dynamics of regulations, populations and communities up to the scale of an agro-ecosystem and
disruptive innovations in food systems based on information analysis and artificial intelligence.
Moving forward transdisciplinarity is one strong recommendation of IWIM scientific board, meaning
going beyond academic interdisciplinarity and involving stakeholders from policy, civil society, etc.,
for integration of knowledge and development of theory among science and society. The overall
ambition is to progress from analyzing and understanding systems to contributing to changing systems
and solving problems.
INRA has a long history of partnership with actors from public policy and socio-economic sector and it
has established several schemes of consultation and cooperation with them. Furthermore, in line with
87
its two policy drivers, Open science and Open INRA, action plans have been launched recently to open
labs, data and productions more broadly to a large diversity of stakeholders, to foster public-private
partnership and to develop citizen and participatory science. INRA has started to train researchers to use
methods for innovative and participatory design and encourage co-conception of programs when it is
appropriate. In addition, INRA is looking at the new ICT to facilitate this openness. Certainly, regarding
their scope and their readiness level, several MP constitute very relevant pilot schemes for a major step
forward in this transdisciplinary research. This will be part of the terms of reference for the new
generation of MP.
At the same time, inter-, transdisciplinary and solution-oriented approaches require that the best
fundamental knowledge is produced by disciplines. Therefore, incentive for excellent disciplinary and
curiosity-driven research must be developed at the same pace than MP.
How to monitor progress of the MP in their efforts toward transdisciplinary research, international
outreach and contribution to disruptive innovation? How to assess their impact beyond classical
bibliographic metrics? This is the third set of findings that will be retained from IWIM 2018.
About 10 years ago, INRA together with other French research institutions developed a common
framework for a comprehensive evaluation, called EREFIN, that goes beyond evaluating bibliography
and tracks also the influence and attractiveness of the research, the diffusion of knowledge and outreach
activities toward socio-economic actors, policy makers, civil society. The proposed approach, namely
typology of activities, quantitative indicators and evaluative questions, has been implemented since then
at INRA. Consequently, it could be adapted to MP monitoring.
Furthermore, the institute set up an approach to assess the socio-economic impact of agricultural
research. Applied to about 50 study cases, this approach, called ASIRPA, has highlighted several main
mechanisms generating impact:
different ideal-types of impact pathways (four were described by ASIRPA). For each type,
specific conditions and mechanisms that favor impact generation were identified.
Importance of pre-existing and long-lasting partnership and co-production of knowledge. Here
again, we find principles of transdisciplinary research.
Intensive transformation of the user’s space (to lift the constraints linked to market access and/or
regulatory aspects and to structure the adoption environment), meaning working also on
adoption networks, including actors that are not aligned with traditional incumbent networks.
In addition, as said by Matt et al (2017), it is to remember that complex chains of translation involve
uncertainty and ambiguity, as well as learning and surprise. MP journeys may be like Columbus
discovery of America that started with the objective of India. Any monitoring of MP must allow for this
flexibility.
Building on the lessons from EREFIN and ASIRPA, INRA should be able to define a relevant process
measures to track progress of MP. Meanwhile, the institute is going to strengthen its annual review
involving all MP to increase cross-fertilization, sharing best practices and learning from successes and
failures of each other.
88
Conclusion
INRA is going to make the most of the advices and great new ideas that have been shared during IWIM
2018 for preparing the second generation of MP. In parallel, the institute is also going to consult
internally its researchers, participatory science starting here. INRA journey with MP continues.
References
Mireille Matt, Ariane Gaunand, Pierre Benoit Joly, Laurence Colinet. Opening the black box of impact – Ideal-
type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization. Research Policy, Elsevier, 2016, pp.207-218.
