The topics to be covered by the three new Focus Groups are:

• Focus Group 53: Production of protein crops under climate change

• Focus Group 54: Local perennial plant genetic resources in view of climate change and biodiversity loss

• Focus Group 55: Alternative solutions for livestock product differentiation

If you have practical experience on any of these topics and would like to share this with 19 other experts to identify promising and inspiring ideas for innovation, please apply by Thursday 19 September 2024 15:00 hrs CET (Brussels time).

of the available email contacts for OG project coordinators and partners reported by the Member States in the SFC database of EIP OG projects, including generic, no longer existing  and unusable email addresses" https://eu-cap-network.ec.europa.eu/publications/study-outcomes-achieved-eip-agri-operational-group-projects-under-cap_en#section--resources (A file containing 330 unusable email contacts within the SFC database of EIP OG projects was shared with DG AGRI on 8 March 2024). Besides that we have a strategic partnership with the Wageningen Universities library (for non academic information) Groen Kenninsnet. All EIP (NSP) projects get their own projectpage (and are approached by them to keep their project-page updated). Example: In de regio - Groen Kennisnet

partners have access to the Hyrra, or does everything (work packages etc.) have to be completed by the lead partner? If yes, can they work on the platform at the same time?

However, they are also relatively complicated to coordinate between the administrative authorities. From a purely technical point of view and in line with the EU Regulation, wouldn't it be possible to do it without them? As far as I know, there are generally no synchronized calls etc. in LEADER either.

Simplified: A LAG in one MS finds a cooperation partner (usually also a LAG) in another MS. A joint project is defined, i.e. it is also determined which work package is implemented by which cooperation partner/LAG (this is important for the distribution of funding and which MS ultimately sets up the funding). In the case of joint work packages such as project coordination/meetings, a logical financing key (allocation of MS) should also be proposed at application. At least an LOI, ideally an actual cooperation agreement that binds both partners to implementation in the event of approval. Both LAGs submit the project in their MS marked as a transnational project - does not necessarily have to be on the same day, as there may be other open calls/procedures in the different MS.

The faster MS selects the project according to the rules and selection procedure valid in the MS. Creates an approval that includes the funding of those work packages/activities of the MS belonging to the their LAG. However, the approval contains a condition that the project can only be implemented and funded if the second MS also selects the project and approves the work packages that fall under the financial allocation according to the rules valid in the MS. Only then can the project begin (without risk). Payment application then takes place separately in the respective MS according to the financial allocation of the approval. Both MS receive all reports.

Consideration: If LAGs are exchanged with OGs or a cooperation partner of the OG, an analogous implementation would probably be possible. If there are rules in the MS regarding the composition of the OG (e.g. at least X farmers, at least 1 consulting company, research partner), the entire transnational OG would of course always have to be considered, i.e. including the “foreign” OG partners. Similarly, in the case of evaluation of selection criteria, always consider the entire project.

Naturally also quite complex, but possibly lower-threshold and also feasible if there are no synchronized calls in advance between MS. The advantage would even be that there is no restriction as to which MS the OG partners come from, provided that the MS has approved transnational projects in principle.