1. Implemention Plan Jan Maat Chair Operational Committee http://etp.ciaa.eu

2. Core Challenges 1.Ensuring that consumers make the healthy choice the easy choice 2.Delivering a (more) healthy diet 3.Delivering value-added innovative food products fulfilling consumer requirements for superior product quality, convenience, availability and affordability 4.Ensuring the production of safe foods that consumers can trust 5.Achieving sustainable food production 6.Managing the Food Chain 7.Communication, Training & Technology Transfer - Food Quality & Manu- facturing Food & Health Food Safety Sustainable Food Production Food & Consumer Communication, Training & Technology Transfer Food Chain Management

3.  ETP Food for Life launched July 2005 on basis of Vision Paper  Board, Operational Committee & Working Groups formed  Successful delivery of –Stakeholder’s proposal of a Strategic Research Agenda (SSRA), –Lead markets document  EU Recognition of the ETP program based on –financial support through a Specific Support Action (SSA) –presence of ETP-SSRA based topics in the FP 7 KBBE programme  Extensive national, regional and web consultations –To ensure participants’ feedback on the SSRA, –To develop plans for alignment / integration of national research programs within transnational or European programmes  Successful creation of Networks, e.g. national food platforms Reflection on Achievements

4. Groundrules of the ETP  ETP F4L is industry-led, yet based on the vision shared by the stakeholders involved:  alignment & consensus important  Key enabler: responsible partnering / trust / empowerment  The Implementation Plan will be focused on selected technology programs geared to increase competitiveness:  define “portfolio” based on impact on innovation vs budgets needed

5. Opportunities The IP will catalyse the execution of the portfolio options through  indicating the priorities for Framework programs (theme & topic definition, open calls)  stimulating the creation of ERANets (transnational collaboration; gov’t driven) on Food, Nutrition & Health and Sustainable Food Production/Food Chain Management (from info sharing  joint calls)  stimulating the creation of Eureka themes (industry driven)  stimulating the creation of public-private partnerships with strategic program & project definition and execution  Identifying other “funding opportunities” (COST, European Institute of Technology, European Investment Bank, Venture Capital)

6. Implementation (Action) Plan. per working group define  The technological dimension  Likely cost of action  Building capacities  Co-operation with industry  Co-operation of National funding agencies  (The impact of legislation on competitiveness) (CIAA)

7. The technological dimension (5 yrs)  Analyse priorities and rank according to their importance to open up market opportunities  For each research challenge (priority) define activities leading to main deliverables –projects, networks, demo’s, studies  Establish the relevance of the research to small, medium or large enterprises. (high priority to the SME sector)  Develop a set of scenario studies to identify the major challenges & opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the (Sustainable) Food Chain)

8. Likely cost of actions  establish the scale of the resources that are necessary to make substantial progress in a 5-year period (investments in 10, 20 or >50 m Euro)  define the likelihood that these resources could be made available from existing investments (national, EU) or not  define needs for specific training/education programs

9. Building capacities WGs to consider  need for ERA-Nets in areas of research defined as high priority  other, e.g. large investments in infrastructure etc.: –European Nutrition Research Council –…..

10. Co-operation (with industry)  Establish willingness for collective industrial support for FP 7 proposals to be submitted under FP7  (Foster) Cross-disciplinary research centres: need for integration and collaboration –initiatives such as Joint Technology Initiatives or public-private partnerships of smaller scale that can be organised on a regional scale –Develop libraries, databases, bio-banks, standardized protocols, networks of facilities –(Foster) prospective cohort studies (ex. EPIC-study) –European stable isotope standard repository –Standardized food tables –Close interaction with European Bio-informatics Institute  (Define) topics of shared interest with other ETPs  (Define) topics in which SMEs have a collective interest

11. Co-operation of National funding agencies / Formation of Mirror Group The Mirror Group will comprise representatives from EU Member States (funding agencies), European Commission (DGs Research, Sanco, Innovation), COST, Eureka, ERA-NETs etc.  Its role will be to facilitate and maximise co-ordination of ETP- and nationally-funded activities and projects,  the Mirror Group can influence the Implementation Plan,  the Mirror Group can effectively interact with the ETP Board,  an inventory of the strategic research agendas of national funding bodies can be conducted with a view to identifying overlaps and duplications, leading to  steps taken to harmonise and integrate Member States’ support of research in the agro-food sector.  Instalment of a task force to set-up the mirror group  Input needed!

12. Specific actions targeted at SMEs  assess the most effective activities to promote technology uptake organised at a national, local level, and at the European level For Food, Nutrition & Health  establish activities on Food, Nutrition & Health to the likely benefit to the SME sector ;  establish the barriers to smaller industries that prevent them exploiting, innovation in the key health and welfare driver of the ETP Food for Life  Task Force on smaller industry [SME and MSE] innovation has been installed (chair:Andras Sebok)

13. Timeline overall  Public/private partnership workshop: Jan 2007  National Platform meeting: April 2007  Final SRA May 2007  Layman’s version of the SRA; idem  Establishment of Mirror Group:May/June 2007  Draft IP: June/July 2007 (  B & OC meeting) –includes SME action pan & Scenario studies  Stakeholder Consultation meeting Sept. 2007  Mirror Group/Board meeting: Oct. 2007  Final IP: Dec. 2007 (Potocnik)

14. What to expect from National Platforms?  Think globally, act locally  Share the ETP vision  Contribute to the Strategic Research Agenda  Be part of the implementation plan: make it happen! Today  Share your experiences and build on others  Seek cooperation Tomorrow  Identify the national representative (government) to be member of the Mirror Group

15. Thank you http://etp.ciaa.eu

16. Towards Implementation The goal of the European Technology Platforms is to focus their activities solely on areas which can contribute significantly to enhancing competitiveness. Next steps for the WGs to get from the SSRA  SRA  IP  identify which of the objectives and goals will make the most impact on the competitiveness of the food and drink sector, and why (FOCUS);  what parallel actions (e.g. policy, capacity building, public acceptance) must be implemented to effectively realise the full potential of the research in driving competitiveness;  what actions are required on the part of the ETP to implement the recommendations; and  to draw up a timetable for action

17. Implementation (Action) Plan  The technological dimension –Priorities; Scenarios, SMEs  Likely cost of action  Building capacities –ERA-Nets, Education; Task force Mirror Group  Co-operation with industry –public-private partnerships  Specific Actions towards SMEs –Task force; regional approach; hurdles; best practices, …  Co-operation of National funding agencies  The impact on the public and the likely acceptability of the product/process  (The impact of legislation on competitiveness)

18. Example Suschem 1

19. Example Suschem 2

20. Example Suschem 3

21. Example Suschem 4

22. Example Suschem 5

23. The impact of legislation on competitiveness  The CIAA Competitiveness Task Force should play a pivotal role in establishing an action program in this area

24. The impact on the public and the likely acceptability of the product/process  prioritise those quality characteristics in raw materials and manufactured foods that are sought by broad segments of consumers  important first step in defining the goals of any subsequent research activity in manufacturing and production  define research challenges in assessing foods for their balance of risk-benefit