Report on financing and governance models for organic breeding initiatives

LiveSeeding Project Deliverable 5.2 Report on financing and governance models for organic breeding initiatives Authors: Claudia Meier (FiBL Switzerland) Nina Lamprecht (FiBL Switzerland) Mariateresa Lazzaro (FiBL Switzerland) Deliverable Number D5.2 Work Package WP5 Deliverable type Report Dissemination level Public Deliverable Lead partner FiBL-CH Due date 30.09.2025 Submission date 19.09.2025 Version V4 Reviewers Maria Carrascosa, Freya Schäfer Contact [email protected] Deliverable number, and short title 1 History of changes Version Date Author Comments V1 16.04.2025 Claudia Meier, Mariateresa Lazzaro Draft outline V2 29.08.2025 Claudia Meier, Nina Lamprecht, Mariateresa Lazzaro Consolidated draft for internal review V3 15.09.2025 Claudia Meier, Nina Lamprecht, Mariateresa Lazzaro Content adaptation based on reviewers comments. V4 17.09.2025 Mariano Iossa Final revision by project coordinator. Submitted version Deliverable number, and short title 2 LiveSeeding - Organic seed and plant breeding to accelerate sustainable and diverse food systems in Europe is a 4-year Innovation Action funded by the European Union, the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). The project started in October 2022 and brings together 37 organisations operating in 16 European countries. LiveSeeding provides science-based evidence and best practice solutions to help achieve 100 % organic seed. LiveSeeding contributes to the transition towards environmentally-friendly, climateneutral, healthy and fair food systems through a PUSH-PULL-ENABLE strategy to enhance the availability and adequacy of organic seeds of cultivars appropriate to organic farming (PUSH), increase and stabilise the market demand for organic seeds of cultivars appropriate to organic farming (PULL), foster an enabling policy and regulatory environment where both demand and supply can harmoniously and productively negotiate without irrelevant constraints due to legal restrictions and/or regulatory fragmentation (ENABLE). LiveSeeding addresses the topics in a holistic multi-actor, multi-stakeholder, participatory approach involving stakeholders along the value chain in 17 local Living Labs (LLs) and 3 established networks of organic breeders (ECO-PB), seed savers (ECLLD) and Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP). 15 European countries cover the different pedoclimatic zones and socio-economic contexts, including countries with a low level of development in organic seed and breeding in East and South Europe. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 3 Table of Contents SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 8 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................. 11 2. ANALYSIS AND MAPPING OF GOVERNANCE AND FINANCING MODELS OF ORGANIC PLANT BREEDING INITIATIVES ............................................................ 12 2.1 GENERAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Selection of survey participants ..................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Survey design and implementation ............................................................... 15 2.1.3 Approach to mapping initiatives .................................................................. 15 2.2 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Description of organic breeding initiatives ................................................. 17 2.2.2 Activities that organic breeding initiatives typically follow ..................... 17 2.2.3 Governance models of the surveyed organic breeding initiatives ......... 18 2.2.3.1 Mapping initiatives............................................................................................ 18 2.2.3.2 Comparative analysis of governance model types .................................... 28 2.2.3.3 Summary Governance ....................................................................................... 31 2.2.4 Financing sources of breeding-related expenses ....................................... 32 2.2.4.1 Operational expenses ....................................................................................... 32 2.2.4.2 Capital expenses ................................................................................................ 39 2.2.4.3 Summary Financing ........................................................................................... 42 3. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF ORGANIC PLANT BREEDING INITIATIVES 43 4. PRESENT STRATEGIES AND SUCCESS FACTORS FOR ADOPTION OF OV AND OHM BY FARMERS ............................................................................................... 49 4.1 APPROACH/METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 49 4.2 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 50 4.2.1 OV case ................................................................................................................ 50 4.2.1.1 Motivation ........................................................................................................... 50 4.2.1.2 Needs and expectations ................................................................................... 50 4.2.1.3 Summary .............................................................................................................. 50 4.2.2 OHM case ............................................................................................................ 51 4.2.2.1 Intrinsic motivation ........................................................................................... 51 4.2.2.2 Extrinsic motivation........................................................................................... 53 4.2.2.3 Enablers ............................................................................................................... 54 4.2.2.4 Summary of success factors for adoption of OV and OHM ..................... 55 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 56 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ 59 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 62 D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 4 ANNEX 1: DESCRIPTION OF GOVERNANCE MODEL TYPES IDENTIFIED .............. 63 List of tables Table 1: Overview of the OPBI participating in the survey. .............................................. 13 Table 2: Overview of the structure of the survey, showing the covered topics per section ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3: Overview of the crops (rows) that the OPBI focus on, grouped by governance type (columns) of the OPBI. The OPBI which focus on multiple crops focus on vegetables and arable crops, and one of them additionally on forage crops. No filter applied, n=14. ............................................................................................................................. 20 Table 4: Overview of the founding years (rows) of the OPBI, grouped by governance type (columns)7 of the OPBI. No filter applied, n=15 (missing value: 1). ...................... 20 D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 5 List of figures Figure 1: Overview of OPBI governance and finance models and recommendations .. 9 Figure 2: Conceptual framework adapted from Egusquiza et al (2021). ........................ 16 Figure 3: Regions of Europe (A), focus crop categories (B), and founding years (C) of the OPBI participating in the survey. ..................................................................................... 17 Figure 4: Reported activities of breeding organizations/initiatives [n = 16]. Question type: Multiple choice. No filter applied. ................................................................................ 18 Figure 5: A mapping of governance and business models of 16 breeding organizations and initiatives, based on the scheme of Egusquiza et al. (2021). .................................... 19 Figure 6: Answers to the question “To what extent is the success of your organization/initiative dependent on the involvement, participation, and/or support of the government/community?“ grouped by governance type. SP, filter: none, n = 14. Please note: for the PO OPBI the value in “governance dependence” was modified from low to high after plausibility check. ....................................................................................... 29 Figure 7: Answers to the questions “Does your initiative operate in a competitive environment?”; “Is the decision-making exclusive?”; “Is the value creation marketdriven?”; “Is the structure hierarchical?” – all: SP, filter: none, n = 14. .......................... 29 Figure 8: Operational expenses (OPEX) of the different initiatives in 2023. The optional question was answered by 11 of 16 initiatives. While A shows all initiatives, B does not show the initiative with the highest OPEX to have a closer look at the others. .......... 32 Figure 9: The source of operational expenses (OPEX) of the OPBI are visualized here, grouped by governance types (PO = public organization, MI = Market initiative, GR = Grass-root initiative, PGR = public – grass-root partnership, MGR = Market – grassroot partnership, PMG = Public – Market – Grassroot partnership). A: overview, B: source of subsidies/funds, C: source of sales. ..................................................................... 33 Figure 10: Competitiveness of funding received from public donors, answers grouped per governance type (PO = public organization, MI = Market initiative, GR = Grassroot initiative, PGR = public – grass-root partnership, MGR = Market – grass-root partnership, PMG = Public – Market – Grassroot partnership). ....................................... 35 Figure 11: The source of operational expenses (OPEX) 2023 of the OPBI are visualized here, grouped by region in Europe. A: Overview, B: Source of subsidies/funds. ......... 36 Figure 12: Operational expenses (OPEX) of the different initiatives in 2023, grouped by region in Europe. The optional question was answered by 11 of 16 initiatives. While A shows all initiatives, B does not show initiative 1 to have a closer look at the others. The results were anonymized. ................................................................................................. 36 Figure 13: The source of operational expenses (OPEX) 2023 of the OPBI are visualized here, grouped by their focus crops. A: overview, B: source of subsidies/funds. .......... 37 Figure 14: Operational expenses (OPEX) of the different initiatives in 2023, grouped by focus crops. The optional question was answered by 11 of 16 initiatives. While A D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 6 shows all initiatives, B does not show initiative 1 to have a closer look at the others. ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 15: Amount of capital expenses (CAPEX) the OPBI have spent in the last 3-5 years, grouped by governance type. Single response question. ..................................... 40 Figure 16: The source of capital expenses (CAPEX) of the OPBI are visualized here, grouped by governance types (MI = Market initiative, GR = Grass-root initiative, MGR = Market – grass-root partnership, PMG = Public – Market – Grassroot partnership). A: overview, B: source of subsidies/funds, C: source of sales. ......................................... 40 Figure 17: Amount of capital expenses (CAPEX) the OPBI have spent in the last 3-5 years, grouped by A: Country of the OPBI, B: focus crop. Single response question. 41 Figure 18: Answers to question 1, n = 29. ............................................................................ 43 Figure 19: Answers to question 2, n = 27. ............................................................................ 44 Figure 20: Answers to question 3, n = 27. ............................................................................ 46 Figure 21: Answers to question 4, n = 23. ............................................................................ 46 Figure 22: Answers to question 5, n = 22. ............................................................................ 47 D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 7 List of abbreviations AEG AEGILOPS AGL Agrologica CAPEX Capital expenses DUGA D’une graine aux autres € Euro FSiF Fondazione Seminare il Futuro F&T FRAB & Triptolème GR Grassroot initiative ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas IPR Intellectual Property Rights KIS Agricultural Institute of Slovenia LL Living Lab LREF Les Refardes SCCL LSSV Living Seeds - Sementes Vivas MCA Multi-criteria analysis MGR Market-grassroot partnership MI Market Initiative NMB Nordic Maize Breeding ÖMKi Ökológiai Mezőgazdasági Kutatóintézet -Research Institute of Organic Agriculture OHM Organic Heterogeneous Material OPBI Organic plant breeding initiative OPEX Operational expenses OV Organic Variety PGR Public-grassroot partnership PM Public-market partnership PMG Public-market-grassroot partnership PO Public Organisation PRM Plant reproductive material PSR ProSpecieRara RSR Rete Semi Rurali R&B DFH Research & Breeding Dottenfelderhof SMART Smarties.bio SRL SOC. AGR. UBIOS Union Bio Semences VARL Associació de Varietats Locals D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 8 Summary Deliverable D5.2 “Report on financing and governance models for organic breeding initiatives” provides a comprehensive overview of governance and financing models used by Organic Plant Breeding Initiatives (OPBI) across Europe and strategic options to enhance their long-term financial sustainability. Achieving funding stability remains a key challenge for the sector due to the long-term, capital-intensive endeavour - often requiring 10 to 15 years - to bring a new cultivar to market. Based on case studies from 16 initiatives across 11 countries (scope), the report analyses key governance and funding typologies, identifies barriers and enablers to sustainability, and highlights marketing success factors for cultivars defined under the EU Organic Regulation. It is based on an online survey, a workshop with a panel of experts from OPBIs -both project partners and external participantsand input from actors of a value chain for an OV and one for an OHM, this last in synergy with D6.1 (methodology). The conclusion is that a collaborative effort, bringing together public bodies and value chain actors at a European level to mobilise public investment and cross-sector contribution is essential for the long-term financial sustainability of organic breeding. Deliverable D5.2 “Report on financing and governance models for organic breeding initiatives” is structured in 5 chapters: Chapter 1 provides the background and objectives of the study, highlighting the critical role of organic plant breeding in sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty, while addressing the challenges posed by inadequate financing models, and setting out the aim to analyze and map governance and funding approaches that can support the long-term viability and societal mission of Organic Plant Breeding Initiatives. Chapter 2 provides a description of financing and governance models of Organic Plant Breeding Initiatives based on data of sixteen initiatives from eleven countries in Europe. Chapter 3 delves into drivers and obstacles to long-term financial sustainability of individual OPBI based on key elements of the governance and financing typologies identified in the analysis of the case studies. The expert reflection on opportunities for long-term sustainability is supported by an overview of success factors in marketing cultivars belonging to the 'Organic Heterogeneous Material' and 'Organic Varieties' cultivar types in Chapter 4, based on the experience of two value chains (one for OVs and one for OHM). These cultivar D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 15 2.1.2 Survey design and implementation In order to design the survey, we drew upon existing literature on governance and financing models, particularly the publication by Egusquiza et al. (2021), who mapped and integrated governance, financing, and business models for nature-based solution projects into one single conceptual framework. Several questions in the survey are inspired by their work. We also drew upon our own experience in previous projects, including LIVESEED and Engagement.Biobreeding which resulted in a publication on “Strategies for integrating organic breeding and seed production into value chain partnerships“ (Winter et al., 2021) and a factsheet on “Governance and financing strategies in Organic Breeding” (Lazzaro & Messmer, 2023). The survey included 5 sections (Table 2) to cover general info about the OPBI, collecting info about their governance and decision-making and the topic of the financial sources for their breeding work. The survey was tested with two initiatives using an online call. After integrating feedback, the survey was distributed to the initiatives to be filled up independently. Table 2: Overview of the structure of the survey, showing the covered topics per section Sections Content Descriptives country, founding year, focus crop(s) Activities pursued breeding activities, pursued sales activities and other activities, sales channels Governance model organizational form, initiator, operational scale, number of employees, type of organization, perceived support from government and community, organizational structure Decision making characteristics of decision making, involvement, decision power, decision making processes on financial issues, on breeding and conservation targets, and on values Financing sources of operational and capital expenses 2023 (and if different: 2022) Total operational expenses, total capital investments, respective sources (sales or subsidies/funds or others) and proportions of the latter 2.1.3 Approach to mapping initiatives As mentioned in chapter 2.1.2, we used the conceptual framework proposed by Egusquiza et al. (2021) to classify and map the 16 initiatives surveyed according to D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 16 their governance models. The conceptual framework consists of a total of seven governance model types, spanning across three dimensions in a triangular space (Figure 2). Figure 2: Conceptual framework adapted from Egusquiza et al (2021). There are three ‘pure’ governance types located in the corners of the triangle (Public Organization - PO, Market Initiative - MI, and Grassroot Initiative - GR) and four hybrid forms – three representing a partnership between two of the three pure types and one representing a partnership between all three pure types. The governance type “public organization” (PO) is located on the top of the triangle. It is top-down regulated by the government. Examples of public organizations are governmental research institutions. In the lower right corner of the triangle are located the “market initiatives” (MI). They are defined to be regulated by and oriented towards the market, e.g. private companies. In the lower left corner of the triangle are located the “grassroot initiatives” (GR). They are strongly based on the community and powered by citizens. NGO’s or associations from civil society can be listed here. Further, the model classifies four hybrid governance types. The hybrid form of public organization and market initiative is called a “public-private for-profit partnership” (PM). This applies when an initiative is part of a (legally defined / formalised) partnership that includes private for-profit and public organisations. The hybrid form of public organization and grass-root initiative is defined as a “publicprivate non-profit partnership” (PGR). This is the case for organizations members of a (legally defined / formalized) partnership that includes private non-profit and public organizations. The hybrid form between market initiatives and grass-root initiatives is a “private nonprofit – private for-profit partnership” (MGR). This applies when an organisation is part of a (legally defined / formalised) partnership that includes private non-profit and private for-profit organisations. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 17 Finally, the model defines a hybrid form of all three governance models: a “publicprivate partnership (for-profit & non-profit)” (PMG). In this case, the initiative includes a formalized framework among private nonprofit, private for-profit and public organization(s). 2.2 Results 2.2.1 Description of organic breeding initiatives The 16 OPBI participating in the survey spread across eleven different countries in Europe (see Figure 3A). Figure 3: Regions of Europe (A), focus crop categories (B), and founding years (C) of the OPBI participating in the survey. As shown in Figure 3C, three of them were founded only recently, between 2019 and 2022. Another three were founded between 2011 and 2014. Five were founded between 2002 and 2007 and four before 1984. Most of the initiatives’ breeding efforts focus on arable crops (n = 9). Four of those specified that they concentrate on cereals and one specified to work on maize. Another three initiatives focus on vegetable breeding and two have multiple focus crops, working both on vegetables and arable crops, with one of them also including forage crops (Figure 3B). 2.2.2 Activities that organic breeding initiatives typically follow The 16 initiatives were asked to indicate the type of breeding activity they are committed to as well as related activities like the sales of plant reproductive material and food or the provision of information through training and events (Figure 4). D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 18 Figure 4: Reported activities of breeding organizations/initiatives [n = 16]. Question type: Multiple choice. No filter applied. In terms of breeding activity, eleven of them conserve/ improve landraces, heirloom varieties, nine of them breed/develop organic heterogenous material (OHM) and eight of them breed/develop organic varieties (OV). Considering breeding-related activities, ten of them offer training/information events, eight of them sell plant reproductive material (PRM), and four initiatives sell raw and/or processed products. Finally, five initiatives reported to sell or offer other products or services, like for example books on seeds, advisory services, and support with variety trials. Only three initiatives stated to exclusively pursue breeding, not selling any products or services. The eight initiatives which sell PRM reported various sales channels: direct selling to farmers, hobby gardeners or plant nurseries (n=6), selling to seed companies (n=4), to food retailers (n=3), to DYI shops (n=4), to garden centers (n=2), to an organic feed company (n=1), and selling via cooperatives who resell the seeds to farmers (n=1). The four initiatives selling raw or processed products indicated selling these to food processors (n=3), food retailers (n=2), consumers (n=2) and cooperatives (n=1). Two of them sell grains which do not meet seed quality requirements directly to consumers or to food processors (e.g.: local bakery). One initiative sells flour, maize, cereal grains and apples on. For them, the sales booth is a way to valorize their products, however, it mostly serves the education of and bonding with the local community. Another initiative sells potatoes to food retailers. 2.2.3 Governance models of the surveyed organic breeding initiatives 2.2.3.1 Mapping initiatives To map the 16 initiatives surveyed according to their governance model, we used the classification scheme proposed by Egusquiza et al. (2021) consisting of a total of seven D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 19 governance model types, spanning across three dimensions in a triangular space (see chapter 2.1.3 for further information on the classification scheme). In the survey, the initiatives were asked to choose one of the seven governance model types they think best describes the way their initiative is managed and operated. Based on answers to additional questions concerning their initiative’s governance and organizational structure, the self-selected governance models were internally validated by the project team and three of the 16 OPBI were re-classified based on this internal consistency check 3 . Figure 5 shows the resulting map 4 . Figure 5: A mapping of governance and business models of 16 breeding organizations and initiatives, based on the scheme of Egusquiza et al. (2021). Except for one governance model type (‘public-private for-profit partnership’ – type 4), each type was selected by at least one initiative. In addition to choosing a governance model type, initiatives were asked a series of questions related to their governance models, including the type of actor initiating the organization, operational scale, number of employees and volunteers, dependence on government or community actors, style of decision making, and organizational structure. In what follows, we cluster the initiatives by governance model type – 3 Please see Appendix 1 for the original classification and re-classification of initiatives – last two rows. 4 See Table 1 for the list of initiatives by ID number. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 20 following the final classification – and describe in detail how each initiative is managed and operated by drawing on the responses to the other governance-related questions. Table 3 shows focus crops by governance model type. The three MI OPBI all focus on different crops (cereals, maize, vegetables). The four GR OPBI focus on vegetables (n=2), and arable crops (n=2). The four MGR OPBI focus on cereals (n=2), arable crops (n=1), and on multiple (n=1). Table 3: Overview of the crops (rows) that the OPBI focus on, grouped by governance type (columns) 5 of the OPBI. The OPBI which focus on multiple crops focus on vegetables and arable crops, and one of them additionally on forage crops. No filter applied, n=14. PO MI GR PGR MGR PMG Vegetables 1 2 Arable Crops 2 2 1 3 1 Multiple 1 1 Finally, Table 4 summarizes the founding year by governance model type. Three GR OPBI were founded between 2002 and 2007, and one before and one after. Also, most MGR OPBI are already quite old (before 1984: 2, 2002-2007: 1) and one of them was founded rather recently (2019-2022). Table 4: Overview of the founding years (rows) of the OPBI, grouped by governance type (columns)5 of the OPBI. No filter applied, n=15 (missing value: 1). PO MI GR PGR MGR PMG before 1984 1 1 2 2002-2007 1 3 1 2011-2014 1 1 1 2019-2022 1 1 1 5 Public organization – PO; Market initiative – MI; Grass-root initiatives – GR; Public-Private partnership (non-profit) – PGR; Private (non-profit)-Private (for-profit) partnership – MGR; Private (non-profit)-Private (for-profit) partnership - PMG D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 21 Public organizations (non-profit) (PO) Definition: Public organizations, traditional top-down legal standards. For example: public research institutes under direct control of the state. One of the sixteen interviewed organizations, the Agricultural Institute of Slovenia - KIS (ID: 6), classified itself as a public organization - PO. It is a public non-profit research institute which covers many research topics in agricultural science at country scale with 270 employees. Breeding activities (breed OV and OHM, and conserve), however, are done by the breeding group of the crop science department which only consists of 25 employees. The breeding group has its own gene bank which they operate on behalf of the government. Besides breeding activities, they offer training and events and provide expert knowledge. Further, they can sell seeds and raw and processed products (e.g. flour, apples, grains) through a structured collaboration with a dedicated department suited for this type of activity. Separating the breeding group from the rest of the institute in governance and financing questions is difficult, as they are highly interwoven. For instance, for bigger trials, the breeding group collaborates with another department, which has an experimental farm. The institute was initiated by the government. Its value creation was stated to be rather market driven and it perceives itself to be operating in a competitive environment. The organizational structure was reported to be rather hierarchical, and the decision-making is described as neither especially participatory nor exclusive. Decisions concerning financial issues and concerning values are usually discussed by the executive board of the institute. The latter includes the department heads and the director of the institute who has the final power of decision. Decisions concerning breeding and conservation targets are discussed within the breeding group. Decisions are taken by the executive board of the crop science department, and the department head has the final decision power. This type of governance model, thus, is at least partly financed by public money and usually initiated by the government. It has clear tasks to fulfill. The organizational structure in the PO seems rather hierarchical and decisions, especially on financial matters, are taken top-down. Market initiatives (for-profit) (MI) Definition: Market initiatives, business-led, self-regulation, market-driven governance. For example: any fully private company. Three of the participating initiatives (Nordic Maize breeding - NMB, Smarties.bio - SMART), Union Bio Semences - UBIOS) were classified as market initiatives. NMB is a small company in the form of a general partnership (in Dutch: “VOF”), in which every participating person is liable for debts. Their organizational form is private for-profit with two people employed. Besides breeding OV and OHM, they sell seeds and seedlings. They also sell maize grains to a processor that processes grains for a local bakery. Additionally, they offer training and events, and they advise maize producers D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 22 and collaborate on projects. SMART, too, is organized as private for-profit and counts ten employees. They breed OV and conserve heritage varieties. Beyond breeding activities, they sell seeds/seedlings and offer trainings/events. Another private forprofit company is UBIOS with twelve employees. Their organization was initiated and is still owned by two organic farming cooperatives that decided to join forces for the breeding of organic seeds. A very small share (2 %) of the organization is owned by a commercial, conventional seed producer which does not have its own infrastructure for handling organic seeds. UBIOS breeds primarily OHM, and one of their farmers might start with breeding some OV. Besides this, they are active in selling seeds, seedlings, and raw products, e.g. lentils or grains that do not meet seed quality criteria. All three organizations were privately initiated, and they operate on an international scale, except for UBIOS which operates on the country scale. The organizational structures of the initiatives are diverse. While NMB classified itself as non-hierarchical, SMART chose to be average and UBIOS rather hierarchically structured. The value creation of UBIOS and SMART is reported to be market-driven, while NMB chose it to be community/citizen-driven. They commented that they are very much rooted in the agroecological movement and therefore the idea and the initiative identify as a grassroot movement. Also, NMB described their environment as collaborative, whilst UBIOS and SMART perceive it as rather competitive and as competitive respectively. When asked about their decision-making processes, NMB and UBIOS described them as rather open-participatory and inclusive, whereas SMART reported theirs to be closed and exclusive. “Exclusive” in this context means that only a few of the people affected by a decision take part in the decision-making process. For discussions about financial issues, the three founders of SMART are involved and have the decision power, the decisions are usually taken in a council meeting between them. In UBIOS, decisions on finance are taken by the board members, all of them farmers of the two cooperatives. They are supported by financial tools and political vision. In NMB, the two employees (breeder and seed producer) are both involved in decision making and both have decision power. They do not adhere to strict processes for decision making. All three initiatives reported the same involvement and processes for decisions concerning breeding and conservation, and for decisions on values like they have for financial issues. The three MI seem very diverse in their size and structure, and therefore also have differing decision making processes. However, the OPBI were all initiated by private actors, driven by conviction in organic farming and the need of providing farmers with organic seeds. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 23 Grass-root initiatives (non-profit) (GR) Definition: Grass-root initiatives, private self-governance. For example: Associations, Foundations. Five initiatives were classified as grass-root initiative (Rete Semi Rurali - RSR, AEGILOPS - AEG, ProSpecieRara - PSR, Les Refardes - LREF, Associació Varietats Locals - VARL). RSR focuses only on experimentation, breeding and conserving OHM and raising awareness in form of trainings/events. As they are non-profit, they reinvest any revenues into the entity. They have 20 employees and 2 volunteers. AEG, too, is a nonprofit organization. They are organized as a member organization with a board of directors and a regular assembly. They have two employees but work mainly with volunteers; the number of up to fifty active volunteers depends on the work to be done. The volunteers are sometimes members, and sometimes other stakeholders from their networks. PSR is a foundation with a big network of private actors, farmers, nurseries and seed organizations. Most market activities lie within this network and not with PSR per se. PSR employs 35 people and counts on the conservation work of around 2500 volunteers. They do not pursue any breeding but focus on conservation, selling seeds and offering trainings/events. LREF is a non-profit farmers’ cooperative. They have two people who legally are responsible for the cooperative, and two employees who mostly cover administrative tasks like accounting and sales. Additionally, 18 producers are included in the cooperative, of which three of them are also legally involved in the cooperative. Like PSR, they only do conservation of PRM. Besides breeding, they pursue selling seeds/seedlings, and they offer trainings/events and sell books about seeds. The fifth OPBI classified as GR, VARL, reported to be a private non-profit organization. They consist of 360 members and have an executive board of 10-12 members. They reported that they only conserve PRM and sell seeds. RSR operates mostly on a national level but sometimes on an international level, while AEG and PSR operate only on a national scale. LREF operates mostly on regional scale, and partly on national (20%) and international scale (10%). Three of them were initiated by the community and one by a private actor (no data for VARL). For LREF, additional to the 2 citizen initiators, an agricultural school (public) and a private funding organization were involved in initiating. All of them stated to operate rather or totally in a collaborative environment and most stated that the driver for their value creation is rather or totally community driven (no data for VARL). Only RSR estimated the driver for their value creation as neither marketnor community-driven. Two of them (AEG, LREF) described their organizational structure as “rather not” or “not” hierarchical. LREF described their decision-making processes to be rather openparticipatory, yet AEG described it as neither open-participatory nor nonparticipatory. PSR described its organizational structure as neither hierarchical nor non-hierarchical and positioned its decision-making processes as average participatory. RSR also described their decision-making processes as average D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 24 participatory. However, their organizational structure is allegedly rather hierarchical (no data for VARL). The reported decision processes regarding financial issues are diverse. On the one hand, there is LREF, where the two legally responsible people of the cooperative discuss together and decide. Also, for RSR, decisions are made rather top-down; for decisions concerning financial issues, the board of directors is involved. The decision power has the general director and the president. Under a threshold of €5000, the general director can reportedly proceed autonomously. Decisions on breeding and conversation targets, i.e. germplasm acquisition, number of plots or catalogue fields are made by the person responsible for the action-research in coordination with the technical director and the technical specialists. Decisions on values are taken by the general director in coordination with the board of directors, based on the statutes and orientation of the assembly of the association. On the other hand, there are AEG and Varietats Locals, with a decision process, where all members can decide during assembly meetings. For both, the decision power lies within the executive board. In the case of PSR, the management board, sometimes with expansion to division leaders, are involved and have the decision power. Budget-related matters are discussed once a year at PSR. The breeders discuss with the project leaders, who themselves discuss with the division leaders who have the decision power. At AEG, decisions must be accepted by the general assembly. The latter reported that breeders will propose their ideas for development of breeding activities to the assembly, and scientific advisors might make some suggestions for improvements, which is then followed by voting. Likewise, the decision-making at LREF follows a participatory process. Once a year, all seed producers and the responsible people of the cooperative meet at a farm. The cooperative responsible then proposes crops/varieties for the following year and the producers can make their proposals, too. The producers choose the varieties which they are interested in growing, and the remaining varieties will then be grown by the cooperative. At VARL the decision process on breeding targets follows a similar structure. All employees can propose new interesting varieties. They will first be tested and then added to the catalogue. For being interesting to them, a variety must be endangered, tasty and healthy. All the five GR OPBI perceived their environment as rather collaborative, and most of them are active on a national level, some of them being also active internationally, some of them being also active on a regional level. Three of them do not breed per se but engage in conservation of PRM, while two also do breeding. None of the GR OPBI sell products, they all reported to exclusively sell seeds/seedlings. Three pursue education/dissemination activities like trainings or events. Most GR OPBI reported to be structured rather non-hierarchical. For decisions about values, finance and breeding issues, there are two major patterns seen. Some decide in openparticipatory processes where everyone (e.g. members, farmers from cooperative) D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 31 2.2.3.3 Summary Governance Only three of the sixteen initiatives surveyed work exclusively on cultivar development. Most have a portfolio of activities from which other types of products and services are derived. Examples of these are offering training and information events, selling plant reproductive material, and selling raw or processed products for the feed or food value chain. Overall, six governance model types could be identified. However, when looking at the distribution of the 16 OPBI in the governance model triangle, the OPBI clearly accumulate in the bottom part, and particularly in the left corner of the triangle, where the GR are located. Five OPBI were classified as GR, and another five were classified as MGR (mixture between GR and MI). Three OPBI were classified as pure MI, being market-oriented and market-regulated. However, all OPBI classified as MI in this study still show some characteristics of grassroot initiatives, with some being initiated by private actors that emerged from grassroot movements. One initiative was classified as a mixture between PO and GR (PGR) – as one actor from the partnership is partly public and others rather private (non-profit) – and one was classified as a hybrid form between all three forms, PO, GR and MI. The latter has characteristics from both GR and MI and is tightly interwoven with a PO. Only one of the 16 OPBI was classified as a pure PO, being organized primarily top-down and initiated by the government. None of the initiatives was classified as a partnership between PO and MI. Thus, these findings highlight that: many of the OBPIs surveyed exhibit characteristics of grassroots initiatives. Consequently, they perceive their environment as collaborative in terms of the network from which they originated and with which they work, rather than the seed sector per se, and they are structured in a non-hierarchical way, with decisions being taken in a participatory manner. grassroots initiatives often form partnerships with private, for-profit organisations, which could facilitate the distribution of plant reproductive material while the breeding activity remains non-profit. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 32 2.2.4 Financing sources of breeding-related expenses In chapter 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.2, the financing sources which the surveyed organic breeding initiatives use for their breeding-related operational expenses 6 (OPEX) and capital expenses 7 (CAPEX) are described. Data on OPEX was collected for the year 2023 – and if different also for the year 2022. Data on CAPEX was collected referring to the ‘last three to five years’, thus for the period 2019 to 2023. Initiatives were asked to focus on the breeding-related expenses that arise in relation to their focus crop categories. 2.2.4.1 Operational expenses Operational expenses for the year 2023 First, initiatives were asked about the amount of operational expenses in Euros (€). This question was optional. Only eleven initiatives provided an answer. For these initiatives, the breeding-related OPEX for the year 2023 ranged from less than €10,000 to €2,500000 – with nine initiatives indicating an amount below €400000. Figure 8 shows an anonymized overview of the OPEX of the OPBI. Two initiatives that did not indicate the amount of OPEX, stated that their breeding related finances are so interwoven with other agricultural research expenses of the organization that they cannot break it down. Figure 8: Operational expenses (OPEX) of the different initiatives in 2023. The optional question was answered by 11 of 16 initiatives. While A shows all initiatives, B does not show the initiative with the highest OPEX to have a closer look at the others. 6 Operational expenses were defined as follows: “With 'OPERATIONAL EXPENSES', we mean expenses that arise whilst your business is running, e.g. expenses for salaries, rent (of machinery or land), and inputs (e.g. seeds, energy, water etc.).” 7 Capital expenses were defined as follows: “With 'CAPITAL EXPENSES', we mean expenses that arise when buying assets like machinery, land, buildings etc.” D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 33 Next, all initiatives were asked about the financing sources of their OPEX. An overview of their answers is presented in Figure 9A through C. Figure 9: The source of operational expenses (OPEX) of the OPBI are visualized here, grouped by governance types (PO = public organization, MI = Market initiative, GR = Grass-root initiative, PGR = public – grass-root partnership, MGR = Market – grass-root partnership, PMG = Public – Market – Grassroot partnership). A: overview, B: source of subsidies/funds, C: source of sales. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 34 Figure 9A shows the share of OPEX covered by subsidies/funds 8 and/or sales, which are further specified in Figure 9B (for subsidies/funds) and C (for sales). Generally (Figure 9A) it can be observed that subsidies/funds are clearly the strongest pillar for financing the 16 OPBI’s OPEX across all governance model types. However, all the MI at least partly finance their OPEX by sales. Interestingly, none of the MGR reported to finance their OPEX through sales. A total of five initiatives reported their OPEX to only be financed by subsidies and funds (AGL, LSSV, RSR, PSR, and R&B DFH). Another six initiatives reported their OPEX to be covered by both subsidies/funds and sales (NMB, DUGA, VARL, UBIOS, LREF, KIS). Another three initiatives reported to finance OPEX through subsidies/funds and other sources like for example projects (AEG), farmers’ means (F&T) and plot fees from members (ÖMKi LL). Only, one initiative (SMART) reported to cover their operational expenses exclusively through income from sales. Another one (FSiF) reported to cover its OPEX from donations by their founding partners. It is important to mention that three of the initiatives who stated to cover their OPEX only through subsidies/ funds do generate sales (AGL, PSR, R&B DFH). However, the related income is not attributed to sales for different reasons. AGL specified that they receive royalties from Landsorten which sells their seeds. However, these royalties are financed by a public fund, which is why they classified the related income as subsidies/funds. PSR stated that whereas they receive income through labelling fees, these sources do not at all cover the costs of their conservation activities. Thus, the latter need to be heavily cross-financed through subsidies and funds. In fact, in the case of one important sales partner – a food retailer – PSR follows an interesting collaboration. Whereas the food retailer does not have to pay labelling fees to PSR, it supports them financially through project funds and other remuneration services. In the case of R&B DFH, they do not sell their seeds themselves but through the Dottenfelder Bio-Saat GmbH. The latter finances their OPEX about half through royalties and half through research projects. The subsidies/funds that are used to cover breeding-related OPEX largely come from public donors (Figure 9B). Some few percentages come from food processors and retailers, some from NGOs/foundations and from society (consumers/ citizens, farmers). Two of the GR initiatives (ID=1 & 2) show the broadest diversity in subsidies/ funds. The OPEX that are covered by sales (Figure 9C) stem primarily from sales of plant reproductive material. Three of the initiatives who reported sales, specified income from royalties, but only small shares. 8 With SUBSIDIES we mean non-competitive resources (for example, CAP subsidies, organic farming subsidies, local subsidies for biodiversity etc.). With FUNDS we mean competitive, project-application based resources. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 35 Next, the initiatives who cover their OPEX through public funds were asked if these funds are competitive (= project-based funds) or not competitive (CAP subsidies, organic farming subsidies, local subsidies for biodiversity etc.). Ten initiatives reported the public funds to be competitive, and only two out of those ten reported that they also received some non-competitive public funding (Figure 10). Figure 10: Competitiveness of funding received from public donors, answers grouped per governance type (PO = public organization, MI = Market initiative, GR = Grass-root initiative, PGR = public – grass-root partnership, MGR = Market – grass-root partnership, PMG = Public – Market – Grassroot partnership). The initiatives were also asked about their OPEX in the year 2022 (optional question). Twelve initiatives have estimated the OPEX of their OPBI in 2022 as about the same as in 2023. Three initiatives reported that their OPEX in 2022 were somewhat different from 2023, and one initiative reported that their OPEX were very different. Operational expenses 2023 grouped by regions in Europe and focus crops To analyze possible patterns in financing strategies of the OPBI, the data on OPEX was additionally grouped by regions in Europe and focus crops (Figure 12-Figure 13). Only the results with n>10 answers were analyzed here, thus, the specific data on OPEX covered by sales were not further investigated. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 36 Figure 11: The source of operational expenses (OPEX) 2023 of the OPBI are visualized here, grouped by region in Europe. A: Overview, B: Source of subsidies/funds. When the initiatives were grouped by regions in Europe they are based in, neither for the amounts of OPEX (Figure 12) nor for the financing source of OPEX (Figure 11AB) a clear pattern was found. Figure 12: Operational expenses (OPEX) of the different initiatives in 2023, grouped by region in Europe. The optional question was answered by 11 of 16 initiatives. While A shows all initiatives, B does not show initiative 1 to have a closer look at the others. The results were anonymized. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 37 Figure 13: The source of operational expenses (OPEX) 2023 of the OPBI are visualized here, grouped by their focus crops. A: overview, B: source of subsidies/funds. It is interesting to observe that two out of three OPBI focusing on vegetables finance their OPEX almost exclusively by sales (Figure 13AB). The third OPBI focusing on vegetables which is not financed by sales does no breeding but conservation of landraces and heirloom varieties. Furthermore, three out of four OPBI focusing on cereals finance their OPEX almost entirely by subsidies/funds, which came primarily from public donors, and one of these initiatives received 70 % of the subsidies/funds from retailers. Finally, the data of the OPBI considering their OPEX 2023 was grouped by focus crops. Figure 14AB shows that the amount of OPEX 2023 was highest for the three OPBI that focus on vegetable breeding (ID 1, 12, 14). Here, also initiative 12 is counted, as they stated to focus on arable and vegetable crops. Further, the OPEX of OPBI 9, 10 and 13, which all focus on arable crops, more precisely on cereals, were all in a similar range, between €70,000 and €150000. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 38 Figure 14: Operational expenses (OPEX) of the different initiatives in 2023, grouped by focus crops. The optional question was answered by 11 of 16 initiatives. While A shows all initiatives, B does not show initiative 1 to have a closer look at the others. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 39 2.2.4.2 Capital expenses To create an overview of the financing strategies of the OPBI, they (n=14) were asked about the amount (Figure 15) and the sources (Figure 16ABC) of their breeding-related capital expenses (CAPEX) in the last 3-5 years, e.g. for buying machinery, land, buildings, and equipment. These results were grouped by governance type of the initiatives. Most initiatives reported CAPEX of less than €50,000 or even no CAPEX during this time, only some few initiatives reported higher CAPEX (Figure 15). No trends among the initiatives of different governance types were observed. In detail, three initiatives reported that they have not made any capital investment in the last 5 years. Six of them reported to have spent less than €50,000 on capital expenses. Another three initiatives reported CAPEX of €100,000 until up to €500,000. Finally, one initiative reported CAPEX of €500,000 until €1,000,000, and one reported CAPEX of €1,000,000- €2,000,000. Not only was the quantity of CAPEX recorded, but also how the CAPEX were financed by the different initiatives. The data was again grouped by governance type of the initiatives (Figure 16). Overall, and especially in comparison to financial sources of OPEX, public funds/subsidies used for CAPEX are underrepresented and seem rare. In terms of governance type versus financing strategy for OPEX, no clear patterns were observed. Yet, both market initiatives (ID 11 and 14) financed their CAPEX completely with sales, and likewise did the initiative 8, which is organized as a partnership between public, private (for-profit), and private (non-profit). Initiative 3, which was classified as a grassroot initiative, also covered its CAPEX almost entirely with sales, and with a small proportion of subsidies. While initiative 3 and 11 invest money from the sales of PRM, the CAPEX of initiative 14 is financed 60 % by sales of PRM, and the remaining part is covered by sales of products and income from royalties. Initiative 8 on the other hand covers all its CAPEX with income through other services that they sell. Only two initiatives, 1 and 12, cover their CAPEX fully with subsidies/funds. While initiative 1 gets the funds to same parts from society and from NGOs/foundation, initiative 3 uses funds from public donors for CAPEX. Initiative 12 receives 90 % of the funds they use to cover CAPEX from NGOs/and foundations, and the remaining from food processors and society. Three initiatives (ID 5, 10, 13) reported that the financial means they use for CAPEX come from different sources than sales and subsidies/funds. Initiative 5 and 13 reported that they use their own means (from the owner of the company/collaborating farmers) for CAPEX. Initiative 10 stated to raise the money by crowdfunding, which can be counted as coming from “Society”. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 40 Figure 15: Amount of capital expenses (CAPEX) the OPBI have spent in the last 3-5 years, grouped by governance type. Single response question. Figure 16: The source of capital expenses (CAPEX) of the OPBI are visualized here, grouped by governance types (MI = Market initiative, GR = Grass-root initiative, MGR = Market – grass-root partnership, PMG = Public – Market – Grassroot partnership). A: overview, B: source of subsidies/funds, C: source of sales. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 47 support, consumer preferences, and market access/ marketing of PRM. Other elements mentioned are business knowledge/ solid entrepreneurship, transparency, and fairness. Figure 22: Answers to question 5, n = 22. We collected recommendation for an OPBI to succeed, which are summarized below. Topic 1: Value chain networking/ -support/ -orientation − Involve as much as possible and since the beginning of the project, all actors of the value chain to respond to all their needs and distinguish from the conventional system. − Involvement of growers in early stages to respond to a need in the field. − Organize seed breeding initiatives in a community-based governance structure. − Getting in touch with local, politicians and associations to build a community around the project – rely on diversity at every level in order to build a community driven and community supported activity. − Act in a network at territorial scale, where the cultivars are only part of your service to the farmers and society at large. Topic 2: Knowledge exchange/ networking within the field − Connect with others breeding and seed producers– network, exchange knowledge. − Learn from already existing initiatives that are open to share. − Find alliance with existing initiatives, eg for common seed sale arrangement. Topic 3: Market-orientation − Have a commercial approach to PRM, beyond agrobiodiversity conservation. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 48 − Organize PRM sales in order to get back some part of revenue for reinvestments in further breeding. − OP (open pollinated) varieties in plant nurseries. Choice of variety is often limited by nursery offer. Topic 4: Communication/ awareness − Create links with local institutions to show the society value of what OPBI does. − Have an important goal for society and communicate about it. E.g. communicate the alternative to patents, ngt (new genomic techniques) cultivars. − Increase awareness of the need of organic varieties to increase the resilience and the efficiency of the organic agroecosystems. − Raise awareness along the value chain partners including consumers of your added values and go for (moral and financial) commitment of the organic value chain you are operating in. − Organic plant breeding is organic from the start. That we need to bring to consumer awareness. To get support from consumers and to have a unique selling point (USP). Topic 5: Organizational structure/ entrepreneurship - Explore new marketing channels. - Get started with private foundation money, reach out to local value chain actors for support, try to get matching public funding, communicate your added value. Most recommendations were given related to value chain networking and communication and awareness raising on organic breeding. Further recommendations were provided related to entrepreneurship, knowledge exchange and marketorientation. To summarize, value-chain networking/ -support/ and -orientation is a very important factor for the financial sustainability of OPBI. The large dependence on short-term funds from research projects was very critically discussed. The dependance should be decreased in favour of a larger dependance on long-term contributions from value chain actors or other important stakeholders. Market-orientation and communication and awareness raising also turned out to be an important topic for financial sustainability. As opposed to funds, revenue from sales is under the control of the initiative. However, market competition is high due to the competition with cultivars from conventional breeders. Therefore, the value-chain support plays a fundamental role. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 49 4. Present strategies and success factors for adoption of OV and OHM by farmers 4.1 Approach/Methodology As OPBI work preferentially in the development of organic heterogeneous material (OHM) and organic varieties (OV) as cultivar types particularly interesting for organic farming (based on the EU Organic Regulation), we have analysed successful strategies to strengthen their use. A successful market uptake of these cultivar types and an increased plant reproductive material sale from them can be an important factor for the financial sustainability of OPBI. To identify the present strategy and success factors for adoption of organic varieties (OV) and (OHM), we collaborated with Task 6.1 of LiveSeeding which had selected two concrete focus cases – one for OV (crop: openpollinated (OP) beetroot variety for juice making, country: Germany) and one for OHM (crop: FURAT wheat for bread, country: Italy) – each including a relevant selection/ breeding program and an established value chain. For the OV case Task 6.1 organized individual face-to-face interviews with breeders (n = 2), seed producers (n = 1), farmers (n = 4), and processors (n = 2). For Task 5.2 the following four questions were integrated into the interviews to identify the factors that motivate as well as enable farmers to use OV: 1. What motivates you/organic farmers to grow an OP beetroot variety such as Robuschka or Gesche? Why do you/ organic farmers grow an OP variety instead of a hybrid variety? (asked to breeders, seed producer, farmers, processors) 2. What needs/ expectations do organic farmers have regarding beetroot varieties when they grow them for juice producers? (asked to breeders, farmers) 3. Please evaluate the following statement: "[OP varieties] are adapted to the needs of organic farmers who grow beetroot for juice producers such as Voelkel or Gesa." (asked to breeders, seed producers, farmers) 4. Please express your “wishes” to breeders, seed producers and processors. (asked to farmers) The first question addresses the motivation of farmers to grow OP beetroot varieties and question two through four address farmers’ needs and expectations in relation to OP beetroot varieties. Questions were not only asked to farmers but also breeders, seed producers, and processors, i.e. the latter were asked to take the perspective of the farmers. For the OHM case Task 6.1 organized an in-person multi stakeholder workshop in Italy, Scandicci, in May 2024. The workshop was kicked off with an exercise for Task 5.2, following an adapted version of the standard SWOT analysis exercise, to identify the factors that motivate as well as enable the use of OHM. Instead of asking for the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of OHM, we asked participants about D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 50 their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to be part of the OHM value chain as well as about enablers (=drivers) of OHM. The exercise focused not only on the adoption and use by farmers, but also other value chain stakeholders. Specifically, we asked participants to complete the following three sentences: 1. “I enjoy being part of the OHM value chain as a breeder/ seed multiplier/ farmer/ processor/ consumer/ citizen, because…”. (= intrinsic motivation) 2. “I benefit from being part of the OHM value chain as a breeder/ seed multiplier/ farmer/ processor/ consumer/ citizen, because…”. (= extrinsic motivation) 3. “OHM wheat will become more relevant in the organic sector, because or if…”. (= enablers) The exercise was done by each participant individually and inputs were then discussed in the plenary. 4.2 Results 4.2.1 OV case 4.2.1.1 Motivation OP beetroot varieties hold significant value for the organic sector by balancing agronomic, economic, and ethical factors. While they may not fully match hybrid varieties in uniformity and yield, their adaptability to organic farming and alignment with organic principles make them highly attractive. Market demand, especially from processors committed to organic values, reinforces their relevance for the farmers. Overcoming ingrained biases favouring hybrids and embracing the unique benefits of OP varieties—including better nutritional quality and seed autonomy or the organic sector - will be key to their wider adoption. Ultimately, OP varieties offer a meaningful path toward more sustainable, transparent, and resilient organic beetroot production. 4.2.1.2 Needs and expectations According to the value chain stakeholders interviewed, organic farmers’ want organic breeding to remain independent with varieties suited for organic conditions that emphasize quality over visual perfection. Improved seed quality and processing, better market support, and enhanced knowledge sharing in management practises are key to fostering organic OP beetroot varieties’ success. 4.2.1.3 Summary Based on our findings, farmers’ adoption of OV is influenced by a combination of economic, agronomic, ethical, and structural factors which can be of inspiration also for other cases. Market Demand & Economic Incentives • Clear demand from processors and customers D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 51 • Price premiums for OP varieties to reflect production risks and higher costs • Stable and transparent seed costs Agronomic Suitability • Strong performance under organic conditions, including good yield potential, and better taste and nutritional profile • Tolerant to diseases, resilience to abiotic stressors, and weed pressure. Improved Seed Quality & Processing • High-quality seeds to improve sowing precision and reduce labor. • Higher germination rates and more uniform seedling development. • Better seed processing infrastructure and attention for organic seeds Farmer Autonomy & Ideological Motivation • Seed sovereignty: OP seeds can be saved and reused without legal restrictions. • Reduced dependence on global seed market. • Alignment with organic principles, including GMO-free and biodiversityfriendly farming. • Desire for regional adaptation and preservation of landraces, heirloom varieties. Cultural & Educational Shift • Acceptance of variability in size and uniformity when offset by quality and sustainability. • Desire for farmer-led trials and local adaptation. • Valuing inner quality (taste, nutrition) over visual perfection. Institutional & Structural Support • Appropriate advisory services and peer-learning networks. • Processing flexibility to deal with harvest variability. Risk Management & Market Structure • Dependency on single buyers is risky — calls for more diversified and flexible markets. • Support for shared risk models and guaranteed markets for OP produce. 4.2.2 OHM case 4.2.2.1 Intrinsic motivation Breeders involved in the FURAT OHM case, highlighted the appreciation of collaborating, exchanging ideas, and being part of a diverse, evolving agricultural system. They emphasize the importance for organic farming, consumer health, and creating meaningful alternatives to mass-market food systems. And they find meaning in contributing to a value chain that benefits everyone involved. Farmers mentioned a mix of personal, social, and environmental reasons for cultivating OHM. They mentioned passion about the dynamic nature of cultivating D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 52 OHM wheat. They appreciate the creative, observational, and innovative dimensions of their work. And they value the opportunity to build relationships, preserve biodiversity, and make responsible choices for the future. Processors enjoy being part of the OHM value chain, for reasons that span learning, identity, sustainability, and contribution to change. Processors value the chance to understand agriculture more deeply and be part of a story that evolves. They feel a strong sense of purpose, knowing their work supports environmental and nutritional health. And they appreciate being involved in a less mainstream but meaningful movement and see it as a form of personal evolution. Together, breeders, farmers, and processors describe the FURAT value chain as a living system rooted in relationships, continuous learning, biodiversity, and shared values. Each group contributes a unique perspective, but all are united by a common goal: to shape a more sustainable, inclusive, and conscious way of producing and enjoying food. The following themes are shared by all three groups can be of inspiration also for other cases: Belonging to a Network Across breeders, farmers, and processors, there’s a strong appreciation for being part of a collaborative and value-driven community. Sharing knowledge, experiences, and challenges enriches their work and creates a sense of solidarity. Empowerment and Satisfaction All groups emphasize continuous learning—whether it’s studying plant populations or experimenting with food processing. The evolving nature of OHM wheat fosters creativity, reflection, and intellectual engagement. People across roles feel more empowered, aware, and fulfilled in their work Sustainability and Ethics A deep commitment to ecological responsibility and ethical food systems runs through all responses. Participants feel their work supports biodiversity, environmental health, and conscious consumer choices. Desire to Create Change Breeders, farmers, and processors see themselves as agents of transformation, moving away from industrialized models toward more just, resilient, and transparent value chains. A common thread is a belief in and commitment to agrobiodiversity, environmental stewardship, and social value. FURAT offers a practical path to act on these values. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 53 4.2.2.2 Extrinsic motivation Breeders identify multiple benefits from participating in the FURAT value chain, including. Most important is the ability to support region-specific supply chains with organic, population-based varieties. And they appreciate that their work directly contributes to climate resilience and aligns with a holistic view of food. Farmers highlight a mix of practical, relational, and philosophical benefits from participating in the FURAT value chain. They gain from growing diverse, unique, and meaningful crops. The produce can be marketed in special value chains with price premium. And they feel more in control of their production, able to plan better and align their work with ecological and social goals and be out of the wheat commodity markert. Processors describe a blend of personal, professional, and relational benefits from being part of the FURAT value chain. They value to be able to produce to excellent, adaptable, and healthy products which can be marked as speciality products for their difference with the standard products. They benefit from rich relationships and shared craftsmanship, which support their production and create community. And they experience personal satisfaction and a stronger connection to the full value of food— from field to finished product. The following themes are shared by all three groups: High-Quality & Healthy Products All groups recognize that the FURAT value chain produces food that is nutritious, flavorful, and environmentally sound – benefiting both producers and consumers. These added values can be exploited in the marketing. Knowledge Exchange and Continuous Learning Participation fosters ongoing learning, collaboration, and innovation. Breeders, farmers, and processors alike benefit from mutual support and idea-sharing that enhances their practices and personal growth. Stronger Relationships and Trust The value chain creates a network built on trust, transparency, and shared values. Relationships among all stakeholders—whether local or beyond—are central and deeply valued. Thus, the FURAT value chain is not just about producing and selling wheat—it’s a community of practice and values. Across all roles, participants benefit from highquality, ethical products, deep connections, ongoing learning, and a sense of purpose. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 54 The FURAT value chain enables them to act on their convictions, collaborate meaningfully, and find joy in their work. 4.2.2.3 Enablers OHM wheat’s growing relevance in organic agriculture hinges on a blend of environmental, technical, social, and economic factors across the entire value chain: Climate Adaptation and Resilience: All groups agree that OHM wheat’s natural diversity and adaptability make it wellsuited to organic systems facing climate change. Its ability to maintain stable production under variable conditions is a key driver for increased relevance. Suitability for Organic Farming Practices: OHM wheat supports organic farming by enhancing weed control, seed adaptation, and biodiversity, aligning well with sustainable agriculture principles. Awareness, Education, and Promotion: For OHM wheat to move beyond niche status, there needs to be widespread consumer and stakeholder awareness of its benefits. Active promotion and education will be essential to increase demand and understanding. Building and Strengthening Supply Chains: The establishment of coordinated supply chains and networks will enable efficient production, marketing, and fair economic returns for all actors involved. Maintaining Quality and Economic Viability: Continued focus on quality and nutritional value will support consumer acceptance and market growth. Additionally, sharing economic benefits fairly across the chain is necessary for sustainability. Regulatory Support and Trust: Evolving legislation and certification rules that recognize heterogeneous populations will provide a necessary framework to build trust and facilitate broader adoption. Preservation of Core Values: There is a strong consensus on the need to preserve the ecological, social, and cultural values embodied by OHM wheat, ensuring that expansion does not compromise its unique strengths. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 55 4.2.2.4 Summary of success factors for adoption of OV and OHM All actors value the sense of community, learning, and shared purpose in supporting organic, sustainable farming with OHM wheat. They benefit from improved market opportunities, product quality, and adaptability to changing climates. For OHM wheat to become more relevant in the future, the chain requires strong promotion, consumer education, regulatory support, fair economics, and continuous technical development, while preserving the ecological and social values that make this wheat special. Farmers adopt OHM wheat primarily because it aligns deeply with their values and passions (biodiversity, sustainability, community), offers practical benefits (adaptability, seed autonomy, economic stability), and provides opportunities for marketing outside of the wheat commodity market. However, successful adoption depends on supportive market structures, regulatory frameworks, consumer awareness, and preserving the ecological and social values of OHM. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 56 5. Discussion and concluding recommendations Achieving financial stability in the organic breeding sector remains a significant challenge. Organic Plant Breeding Initiatives (OPBI) are often micro-to small and medium sized entities. They are characterized by a high degree of effectiveness and adaptability as they manage to deliver cultivars adapted to organic and agroecologyoriented farming while protecting seeds as a common good. Yet, they operate with funding streams that are discontinuous, short-medium term oriented and follow donor patterns (rather than recipient ones) and therefore make it difficult to plan on the long term. The financial instability hampers the sector's ability to scale up and out, limiting the number of crops being worked on, and limiting the necessary investments in infrastructure and technology. The topic of establishing adequate financing strategies that respect the sector's values while enabling its growth is still a critical issue to be tackled by the organic sector as a whole and public donors. Our study allowed for a reflection on the interdependence between the governance models and financial strategies of surveyed OPBI, exploring how organizational structures influence access to funding. Sectoral actors consider the type of governance model important for the financial sustainability of an OPBI, as it impacts access to specific funding types. This awareness can help to identify strategic dynamics that support collaborative actions for improving the situation at European level, as suited for each governance typology. In terms of governance, the analysis of the surveyed Organic Plant Breeding Initiatives reveals a sector deeply committed to its core principles of collaboration and participation. The majority of OPBI surveyed are characterized by grassroots and hybrid grassroots-market governance models, which is a direct reflection of the valuedriven nature of organic breeding. Even the for-profit initiatives included in the study retain characteristics of grassroot movements, with some being initiated by private actors who emerged from such movements. Another connected element is the commitment of sectoral actors to have monitoring and validation processes in place, to demonstrate transparency to funders on the impact of their investment. This suggests that even within the for-profit segment of the sector, the influence of its value-driven origins remains visible. However, the value-driven goals of the sector, namely provide adapted varieties and protect agrobiodiversity as a common goods, faces significant structural hurdles in relation to the current donor funding mechanisms and delivery methods, which are too heavily reliant on short-term, competitive grants. D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 63 Annex 1: Description of governance model types identified Public organisation (nonprofit) - PO Market initiative (forprofit) - MI Grass-root initiative (nonprofit) - GR Public-private partnership (non-profit) - PGR Private (non-profit)-private (for-profit) partnership - MGR Public-private partnership (for-profit & non-profit) - PMG Governance model ID 1 2 3 5 6 7 Legal form (E2) Public (6) Private for-profit (9, 11, 14) Foundation (1), Farmers cooperative (3), private nonprofit (2, 7, 16) Private non-profit (4) Private non-profit (5, 12 13), Private for-profit (10), Private for-profit with nonprofit (15) Private for-profit (8) Initiating actor (E3) Government (6) Private actor (9, 11, 14) Community (1, 2, 7), Private actor (3), missing value (16) Private actor (4) Community (5, 12), Private actor (10, 13, 15) Private actor (8) Operational scale (E4) Country scale (6) Country scale (9), Mixed scale (11), International scale (14), Country scale (1, 7), Mixed scale (3), International (2), missing value (16) Country scale (4) Regional (5), International (10, 13, 15), Country scale (12) Country scale (8) Number of employees (E5) 270 – 25 involved in breeding (6) 2 (11), 10 (14), 12 (9) 2 (7), 4 (3), 20 (2), 35 (1), missing value (16) 3 (4) 1 (5, 15), 2 (10, 13), 12 (12) 2 (8) Number of volunteers (E6) 0 (6) 0 (9, 11, 14) 0 (3),2 (2), 50 (7), 2500 (1), missing value (16) 0 (4), 2 (2) 0 (10, 12), 4 (13), Missing value (5, 15) 0 (8) Dependence on community support (G1) Low (6) Low (9, 14), High (11) High (1, 2, 3, 7), missing value (16) High (4) Medium (5, 10, 13), High (12), Missing value (15) High (8) Dependence on government support (G3) High (6)9 Low (14), Medium (9), High (11) Low (7), Medium (1), High (2, 3), missing value (16) Medium (4) Low (5, 13), Medium (12), High (10), Missing value (15) High (8) Decision-making 2 (H4) Average (6) Open-participatory, inclusive (11), Rather openparticipatory, inclusive (9), Closed-participatory, exclusive (14) Rather open-participatory/ inclusive (3), Average (1, 2, 7), missing value (16) Average (4) Open-participatory, inclusive (5), Rather openparticipatory/ inclusive (10, 12), Average (13), Missing value (15) Rather open-participatory/ inclusive (8) Organizational structure (H2) Rather hierarchical (6) Non-hierarchical (11), Average (14), Rather hierarchical (9) Non-hierarchical (7), Rather non-hierarchical (3), Average (1), Rather hierarchical (2), missing value (16) Average (4) Non-hierarchical (5), Rather non-hierarchical (12), Average (13), Hierarchical (10), Missing value (15) Non-hierarchical (8) Value-creation Rather market-driven (6) Market-driven (9, 14), Community-/citizen driven (11) Community-/ citizen-driven (7), Rather community-/ citizen-driven (1, 3), Average (2), missing value (16) Rather market-driven (4) Community-/ citizen-driven (5, 12), Average (13), Marketdriven (10), Missing value (15) Average (8) 9 Please note: For the PO OPBI the value in “governance dependence” was modified from low to high after plausibility check . D5.2, Governance and finance models in organic breeding 64 Public organisation (nonprofit) - PO Market initiative (forprofit) - MI Grass-root initiative (nonprofit) - GR Public-private partnership (non-profit) - PGR Private (non-profit)-private (for-profit) partnership - MGR Public-private partnership (for-profit & non-profit) - PMG Environment Competitive (6) Collaborative (11), Rather competitive (9), Competitive (14) Collaborative (1, 3), Rather collaborative (2, 7), missing value (16) Rather collaborative (4) Collaborative (5, 10, 13), Rather collaborative (12), Missing value (15) Rather collaborative (8) Initiatives surveyed (selfclassified) 6 9, 11, 14 1, 3, 7, 12, 16 2 5, 10, 13, 15 4, 8 Initiatives surveyed (reclassified) 6 9, 11, 14 1, 2, 3, 7, 16 4 5, 10, 12, 13, 15 8