This report corresponding to Deliverable 3.1 (D3.1) summarises the results of the initial analysis of the Multi-Actor Innovation Projects (MIPs) portfolio (Milestone 22 of task 3.1), the white spots identified in these projects and the gaps or shortcomings of advisors and/or Advisory Service Providers (ASPs) on Climate Smart Farming (CSF) innovations. In order to carry out the analysis of the MIPs, a criteria matrix was designed through which 145 MIPs from 22 European countries were assessed. This criteria matrix included categories and variables that broadly cover the main aspects and/or characteristics of MIPs in terms of approaches, actors, thematic areas and other elements of this type of projects. Through frequency analysis, the main aspects and/or characteristics of the MIPs were identified, and a traffic light scale was used to identify and priorities the white spots according to the percentage of inclusion of the variables that were analysed for each category. As a complementary assessment, the responses of the project partners (National Coordinators (NCs) and Thematic Leaders (TLs)) included in the MIPs survey (Milestone 22 of task 3.1) were analysed on the shortcomings detected in the activities of the advisors and/or ASPs in the MIPs and in general on the gaps of the advisors and/or ASPs on CSF innovations. The feedback received from the rest of the project partners on the preliminary results presented during the General Assembly #3 in April 2024 also contributed to the definition of criteria for the selection/prioritisation of white spots and served to complement the analyses and consolidate the results presented. These results are intended to serve as a basis for the selection of 4-5 Co-Design of Innovation Experiments (CoDIEs) of the first round. Therefore, this deliverable summarises the main results of the evaluation carried out: 1. Feedback from project partners (kick-off, May 2023); 2. General analysis of the MIPs portfolio (frequency analysis); 3. General Criteria Matrix Summary; 4. White spot matrix results; and 5. Advisory gaps in CSF innovations.
Giagnocavo et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: