# Changes in consortium skills and mind-set for improving dissemination and impact

Christian Huyghe, Aurelie Gauguery

► To cite this version:

Christian Huyghe, Aurelie Gauguery. Changes in consortium skills and mind-set for improving dissemination and impact. D 6.9, INRAE. 2026, 19 p. hal-05535114

HAL Id: hal-05535114

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05535114v1

Submitted on 3 Mar 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

European network to promote grazing
and to support grazing-based farms on
their economic and ecologic
performances as well as
on animal welfare

Project Acronym: [Grazing4AgroEcology](https://www.grazing4agroecology.org)

Project Number: 101059626

Deliverable No.: D 6.9

Deliverable Title: Changes in consortium skills and mind-set for improving dissemination and impact

Responsible Partner: INRAe

Due date: 28 February 2026

Submission Date: 28 February 2026

Dissemination level: PU
<table><thead><tr><td>Programme</td><td>Contract Number</td><td>Duration</td><td>Start</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Horizon Europe</td><td>101059626</td><td>42 Months</td><td>September 2022</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Contributors

<table><thead><tr><td>Name</td><td>Organisation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Christian Huyghe</td><td>INRAe</td></tr><tr><td>Aurélie Gauguery</td><td>INRAe</td></tr></tbody></table>

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf.
Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms

<table><thead><tr><td>Abbreviation</td><td>Meaning</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>PF</td><td>Pilot Farms</td></tr><tr><td>TN</td><td>Thematic Network</td></tr><tr><td>G4AE</td><td>Grazing for AgroEcology</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
# Index of Contents

<table><tr><td>Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Index of Contents</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>1 Introduction</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2 Self-assessment of the dissemination strategies and activities within the consortium</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2.1 Dissemination strategy towards farmers</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2.2 Dedicated designs for dissemination</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>2.3 Deliverables for dissemination</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>2.4 What could be improved?</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>3 Innovation networks</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>3.1 France</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>3.2 Germany</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>3.3 Ireland</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>3.4 Italy (Sardinia)</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>3.5 Italy (South-Tyrol)</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>3.6 Portugal</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>3.7 Romania</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>3.8 Sweden</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>3.9 The Netherlands</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>3.10 Cross-cutting issues</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>4 Reflexive analysis on the G4AE project dissemination strategy and plan and on its real impact</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>4.1 Strengths</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>4.2 Weaknesses</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>4.3 Possible improvements – Lessons to future thematic networks</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>5 Conclusion</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>6 Literature</td><td>19</td></tr></table>
# 1 Introduction

The sub-task 6.5 of the thematic network project G4AE was dedicated to the definition of Impact Navigator Pathways. Behind this odd title, the overall objective of this sub-task was to define the conditions for increasing the dissemination of innovations towards the end-users, who are the farmers in the case of the project.

The analysis of impact of research has been and is a key question for many research programs at the levels of the European Union as well as of the member states. It is also a permanent question for the research and technical institutes. Many theoretical studies and experimental works were dedicated to this subject. It was not the objective of the task 6.5 and of the present deliverable to make a synthesis of all the relevant literatures. But we used some of their findings for setting the objective of the task and for defining the strategy.

Most of the relevant literature underline that the time needed for the emergence of a new idea, its development into a novelty and for the resulting innovation to reach the end-users is very long. In an assessment of a diversity of situations run by Inra (France), in the early 2010'ies, it was calculated that the average time was close to 20 years and that it was necessary to assess all impacts of an innovation, including economic issues, environmental and social impacts as well as consequences on public policies.

The assessment of dissemination and impact also led to the definition of a scale, named TRL (Technology Readiness Level), a scale ranging from 1 (emergence of a theory) to 9 (the innovation is implemented), this scale being relevant in technology and social sciences. It could also be implemented in public policies. However, this scale could give the impression that the process is linear. It is not exactly the case, as there are many loops where the progresses at one given level of the scale may lead to modifications and revisions at the previous steps. This scale also gives little space for co-design. However, it is useful for understanding the role of large groups of stakeholders.

The analysis of dissemination and impact also led to the description of impact pathways where many stakeholders are active. It requires to open the black box of impacts (Matt et al, 2017). The impact pathways are critical to ensure the delivery of innovations. Usually they are not made explicit. In the case of incremental innovations, the pre-existing pathways are active. In the case of disruptive innovations, they are not pre-determined. R. Van Dis (2023) analysed these pathways and showed that it was possible to increase and speed up the impact of research projects by investigating these pathways.

In the present project dedicated to grazing-based animal production where it is envisaged to improve all performances thanks to the agroecology principles, we tried to analyse the impact pathways and to envisage how they could be improved.

The work, reported in the present deliverable, was developed in several steps.

- It first includes a training of the consortium regarding the analysis of dissemination and impact, based upon case studies and examples in all the partnering countries of the project.

- The second step was a survey, within the consortium, of the dissemination activity and of its efficiency.

- The third step included a description of the networks that are existing around the farmers and who are likely to deliver information on innovations, either directly (training, visits) or indirectly (encapsulated innovations such as genetic gains which are disseminated through seeds of improved plant varieties)
- Eventually the last step was performed through breakout sessions to assess the overall performance of the G4AE project regarding dissemination. We identified the strengths, the weaknesses and the gaps for improvements.

The steps 2 to 4 will be presented in this deliverable.
## 2 Self-assessment of the dissemination strategies and activities within the consortium

Through an online survey, the members of the consortium were invited to report an analysis of their own dissemination activity. This was done at the level of each organisation. With a total of 15 answers, we reached a very high level of coverage of the partnering countries, except Sweden, and of the types of stakeholders, except industries who were very few among the project partners.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

### 2.1 Dissemination strategy towards farmers

The assessment of the dissemination strategy showed that all organisations have an explicit dissemination strategy, even though this strategy is now always published or independently evaluated.

It is worth noticing that this strategy was nearly always defined in association with farmers, farmers' organisations or advisors. At the opposite, other groups of stakeholders, such as academia or industries are diversely associated.
## The strategies for contributing to the delivery of actionable levers to farmers

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## 2.2 Dedicated designs for dissemination

Most partners have set dedicated designs for improving dissemination towards farmers. The main ones are i) the training of farmers or advisors, either set by themselves or contributing in designs operated by other stakeholders, ii) the farmers networks and the demo farms.

### Dedicated design

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

## 2.3 Deliverables for dissemination

A broad range of deliverables are produced for dissemination in order to increase the impact.

### Deliverables

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

The production of written supports is a major element for dissemination and impact. This coherent with the choice of the consortium to upgrade Encyclopedia pratensis and to build a bridge with EU Farm Book.
Training of professionals and cooperation either nationally or at the European level are also identified as key elements for an efficient dissemination.

In the survey, we also included a question for assessing the needs of the members of the consortium for the improvement of their own skills. It is interesting to note that this question got a low level of answers, i.e. the members of the consortium have difficulties to identify the resources they would require for improving their own skills.

## 2.4 What could be improved?

A last set of questions was related to the possibilities for improvement.

As the evaluation of the overall efficacy was high for all partners (from 5 to 9 on a 1-10 scale), the needs for improvement were limited and mainly concerned actions and partners.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

The partners for dissemination are those who are involved in the impact pathways. This answer underlines the need to show the network of actors that are likely to delivery information on innovations to the farmers.
# 3 Innovation networks

One innovation network was set per country, except for Italy, where the structure may be very contrasting among provinces. The maps of the networks are shown per country and an overall discussion is provided at the end.

## 3.1 France

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

## 3.2 Germany

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

## 3.3 Ireland
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Ireland Impact Pathway - Grazing4Agroecology October 2025

20

## 3.4 Italy (Sardinia)

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

## 3.5 Italy (South-Tyrol)
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

## 3.6 Portugal

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

## 3.7 Romania
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Adapted from I2Connect EU funded project

## 3.8 Sweden

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

## 3.9 The Netherlands
**Importance**
(what is their influence;
to what level can they
directly change the
behaviour of farmers)

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

**Contact**
(how often do they interact with farmers)

### 3.10 Cross-cutting issues

Even if most maps are similar and based upon a common model, it exists various ways to represent the situation and the network around farmers.

These maps show a large diversity of pathways to farmers in Europe among countries and within countries as illustrated by the show case of Italy. It is indeed obvious that the networks we experience today are the results of history, of the organisations and their own mandates and of collective choices. These collective choices, often made by or under the supervision of the central governments, are due to the importance given to agriculture and agricultural production and are measurable by the overall expenses awarded to this complex networks. It will be interesting to analyse whether the increasing attention paid today to food security and food sovereignty will or not lead to new choices on these dissemination networks.

In all countries, it is fascinating to see that there is a tremendous diversity of partners working with the farmers. This is also the expression of the complexity of the farming activity. However, regarding innovations, this may lead to a lack of coherence of the transmitted information. As a consequence of these complex networks, and as every partner and every link may fall under a specific regulation, it is possible that conflicts emerge with lack of coherence among regulations. It is also obvious that this may give the feeling of an overregulated systems, with too many regulations.
The links among partners and down to farmers are expressing a flux. But these fluxes may be very different. They may be fluxes of knowledge, such as training, advice, supports or visits. They may also be fluxes of matters and services. In such cases, the possible innovations are encapsulated ones, where the farmers are not always aware of on-going innovations but are fully benefiting of those innovations. In such cases, it is clear that the adoption of innovations is much easier and that the dissemination occurs without hurdles.

The complexity of the maps, again due to the numerous dimensions that the farmers have to cope with, is showing a flat diagram and does not make it possible to identify the most relevant stakeholders for the dissemination of knowledge and innovations related to grazing-based animal production systems. One possibility for structuring this complexity would be to place all stakeholders, including farmers, on a two-dimensions maps, as illustrated in the figure below. The dimensions are i) the capacity for action towards more grazing-based animal production systems using the agroecology principles and ii) the level of concern for achieving a change, i.e. more such systems. The procedure for building such a map is to start with one stakeholder, the choice being made freely by the person or the group, and then to place the next stakeholders in a relative position compared to the previous one(s).

The stakeholders with the highest capacity for inducing changes are those who would be at the top right quarter of the map. When defining dissemination strategy or when building an impact pathway, these stakeholders should be prioritized.

Such a mapping would contribute to estimate the stakeholder engagement, even more if such a capacity for action x level of concern is combined with the position in the network existing around the farmers (Wang et al, 2025). This would be particularly important for the analysis of the role of the knowledge brokers, as suggested by Vallance et al (2025).

The identification of this step occurred late in the G4AE project and the procedure of identification was not implemented. However, this methodology could be used for future thematic networks.

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
# 4 Reflexive analysis on the G4AE project dissemination strategy and plan and on its real impact.

During intense breakout sessions and sharing the experience across countries and among types of partners, we analysed i) the strengths through the actions which were perceived as positive for maximizing the impact, ii) the weaknesses through the actions which were either difficult to implement or moderately/negatively perceived by the groups of farmers or pilot farms, and iii) the possibilities for improvements.

## 4.1 Strengths

Many positive actions implemented during the project were perceived as positive.

* Operationalisation of the networks at the national level, among countries, and when precisely dedicated to young farmers. This group of stakeholders was particularly important to the G4AE consortium and a dedicated communication targeted them. We also organised Young Farmers tours and Young Farmers meetings. During the course of the project, it was noticed in some countries a rapidly increasing attendant to young farmers meeting and young farmers tours.

* The definition of Pilot Farms (PF) (also named as demo farms) was a very important element of the project and proved to be very efficient. Indeed, the meetings held on those farms had a high attendance, farmers met other farmers that they did not meet before and farmers are already copying examples from PF on their own farms. It is also anticipated that the PF meetings will continue after the project

* The AKIS meetings, with a very diverse attendance, from research to value-add chain sector, were an important element of the overall dissemination strategy. The fact-based discussions with applied and practical recommendations were very much appreciated, as well as the cross-fertilisation among countries.

* The material produced during the project is also an important positive component. This includes the creation of educational material and all knowledge objects which are now available on our repository Encyclopedia pratensis and on EU FarmBook (a syllabus gathering a large set of information and data). A massive amount of knowledge has been used for building the Self-Assessment Tool. Even though it can be improved (see below), it provides already now a standard tool to analyse a farm and suggest improvements for grazing and agroecology. Eventually, the two conferences, opened to a large audience and dedicated to labelling and wildlife-livestock interaction respectively, were positively identified.

* The competitions for best farmer in the different countries and the Awards ceremony in Ireland in spring 2025 – were very much appreciated and had big leverage effect.

* The preparation of a policy paper and its presentation and discussion via the 10 Feb meeting in Brussels make it possible to reach policymakers and a large range of stakeholders

## 4.2 Weaknesses

However, weaknesses were identified at the end of the project.

- Self-assessment tool is sometimes perceived as too complicate, because of its length and the numerous questions, because some questions are irrelevant for some farmers. An APP could increase its accessibility;

- The topics of the AKIS meetings and the main messages were not communicated among countries. This was not a primary objective, but considering the richness of these meetings, this would have increased the impact. The AKIS remained national and there was no emergence of a real EU-wide AKIS group created during the project as a result of our activity.
- Young farmers tours were difficult to implement as there was not a proper allocation of necessary resources from the beginning of the project. Funds had to be searched from other national sources

- The Knowledge reservoirs - Encyclopedia pratensis and EU FarmBook - are very rich and are considered as too complicated to be used. They are not known by the practical community and perceived as not hands-on regarding the applicability of the innovations. The financial consequences/benefits of the innovations are not described in the practice abstracts.

## 4.3 Possible improvements – Lessons to future thematic networks

In order to increase the impact of thematic networks on the basis of the experience of G4AE, we identified the following issues.

* The timeline for producing material was slowed down because of the need of a clear set of definitions and goals. The first period of the project was needed to know and share them. Similarly, the expectations from farmers in pilot farms should be made clear and shared among all countries from the very start of the project

* The timeline of producing and sharing results is difficult in the 3 years duration of a thematic network. Some were published 2 years after creation. One critical issue, the disclaimer, took a lot of time to be defined and to be inserted, especially in the videos. It should have been available before producing the first video and its insertion should not be a matter for discussion.

* Our thematic network was targeting farmers. However, it appears necessary to also consider the whole ecosystem for more impact. In order to reach more young farmers, attention should also be given to students who are future farmers or advisors and the possibilities for financial support of their attendance by the thematic network should be explored. It is necessary to reach consumers / society / general public. This could be achieved by creating a more direct relation with consumer associations, environmental associations and policy makers, as part of the thematic network. Eventually, even though it is not an explicit objective of the thematic network, more scientific impact should be targeted through the writing of scientific papers.

* Conferences were not included as an action in the initial project. So, they appear as opportunities. However, they proved to be very efficient in disseminating knowledge and in increasing impact of the thematic network, to a very large audience (see the previous item). So, they should have been incorporated from the start.

* The SA-tool, with the strengths and weaknesses listed above could be used in market concepts and certification schemes. By doing so, it would be an encapsulated innovation.
# 5 Conclusion

The work done all over the project and the discussions during the last GPA meetings gave an overall positive evaluation of the quality of the strategy, of efficiency of the dissemination actions and of quality of the dissemination partnerships of G4AE and of the partnering organisations. However, it was quoted that there were possibilities for innovative dissemination actions

The mapping of the dissemination pathways towards farmers involved in grazing-based animal production systems showed the extreme complexity in every country, with many actors. Differences among countries underline the context dependency, which was considered in various WP of the project. As the farmers are the main and essential target of knowledge dissemination, this shows that they receive information from a very large number of sources, leaving space for conflicting information and leading to many difficulties in making decision. From such maps, it would be possible to draw a chart where all sources of information are mapped according to their capacity for action and level of concern when considering the goal of more agroecology-based grazing and herbivore production to increase agriculture sustainability.

The reflexive sessions showed, according to the partners, that the G4AE project met its objective of successful dissemination with key elements such as SA Tool, Young Farmers Tours or Grazing Awards. Some possibilities of improvements were identified.

It is very difficult to demonstrate that the mindset of the members of the consortium changed over time regarding the possibility to increase the impact. However, the discussion and the benchmark among countries is a very efficient way to modify the mindset and to increase their awareness. But it is clear that the skills of all partners of the consortium have been increased for more dissemination and more impact.
# 6 Literature

Matt M., Gaunand A., Joly P.B., Colinet L., 2017. Opening the black box of impact - Ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization. Research Policy 46, 207-218

Vallance P., Mac Killop E., Downe J., Notman G., 2025. Understanding the impact of knowledge brokering organizations: the case of the UK What Works Centres. Research Evaluation 34, DOI10.1093/reseval/rvaf022

Van Dis R., 2023. Re-envisioning Responsible Research: The Inextricable Role of Translation: The case of ASIRPA Real-Time in the French 0-Pesticides mission. PhD University Gustave Eiffel, France

Wang Z.R., Gong H.C., Zhang Q., Wang H., Deng S.H., 2025. From knowledge to impact: tracing stakeholder engagement pathways within different research areas. Research Evaluation 34, DOI10.1093/reseval/rvaf044