SALUS Final Evaluation Report PB 141008 MTT · WP7 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the major...

SALUX A European Network to Follow-Up the Reformulation of Food;

Identification and Exchange of Good Practices

for SMEs and Consumers

AGREEMENT NUMBER 2010 12 10

HEALTH PROGRAM (2008-2013)

Evaluation Report for the Final Report

Number of Work Package

WP3

Evaluation period

06/08/2011 - 05/08/2014; 1M-36M

WP Leader MTT Partners involved ALL: TECNOGRANDA; SFVS; CANRI; UHOH; CCFRA;

TUB.LMBT; BOKU; JATA-EMONA; AGRO-HALL; CBHU; MTT; CODACONS; UIB; ISES, IBA

Updated 11.09.2014

2

Contents

1. Introduction to the project management structure and evaluation activities ..................... 5

1.1 SALUX project partners ............................................................................................. 5

1.2 Project workpackages and responsible organisations ................................................ 6

1.3 Evaluation activities ................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Partner responsibilities of the evaluation process ...................................................... 7

1.5 Independent experts ................................................................................................... 8

2. Evaluation results............................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Summary of evaluation of the project progress .......................................................... 9

2.2 Evaluation of the partners’ satisfaction and involvement ......................................... 11

2.3 Summary of evaluation of the project meetings ....................................................... 13

2.4 External evaluation report ........................................................................................ 16

External evaluation report – RP01 .............................................................................. 16



APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 1: Project partner’s individual activity responses – first reporting period ........ 43

Appendix 2: Project partner’s individual activity responses – second reporting period .. 49

Appendix 3: Open answers from the project partners to the partners satisfaction and

involvement questionnaire – first reporting period .......................................................... 55

Appendix 4: Open answers from the project partners to the partners satisfaction and

involvement questionnaire – second reporting period .................................................... 56

Appendix 5: CV of the independent external experts .................................................... 57

3

Appendix 6: External evaluation – General evaluation board ......................................... 64

Appendix 7: External evaluation – Skype conference evaluation board ......................... 66

Appendix 8: External evaluation – tables for evaluation data collection ......................... 69

Appendix 9: External evaluation – Evaluation Deliverables Scoreboard ........................ 72

4

Overview

This evaluation report summaries SALUX (former project name SALUS) evaluation

activities during the period 06/08/2011 – 05/08/2014.

This evaluation report firstly introduces the project management structure and work

packages in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2 four different evaluation activities are reported:

(1) Summary of evaluations of the project progress

(2) Evaluations of the partners’ satisfaction and involvement

(3) External evaluation reports

(4) Evaluation of the project meetings

5

1. Introduction to the project management structure and evaluation

activities

1.1 SALUX project partners

This project is a collaborative initiative between the organisations listed below

Project partner 1: Tecnogranda SpA (TECNOGRANDA), Italy; (Coordinator of the project)

Project partner 2: Valstybine Maisto Ir Veterinarijos Tarnyba (SFVS), Lithuania

Project partner 3: Canning Research Institute (CANRI), Bulgaria

Project partner 4: Universität Hohenheim (UHOH), Germany

Project partner 5: National Institute of Research & Development for Food and Bioresources (IBA),

Romania

Project partner 6: Campden Technology Ltd (CCFRA), United Kingdom

Project partner 7: Technische Universität Berlin (TUB), Germany

Project partner 8: Critt Agro-Alimentaire de Haute-Normandie (AGRO-HALL), France

Project partner 9: Emona Razvojni Center Za Prehrano (JATA-EMONA), Slovenia

Project partner 10: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien (BOKU), Austria

Project partner 11: Campden BRI Magyarország Nonprofit Kft (CBHU), Hungary

Project partner 12: MTT Agrifood Research Finland (MTT), Finland

Project partner 13: Coordinamento di Associazioni per la Tutela dell ‘Ambiente e dei Diritti di Utenti

e Consumatori ( CODACONS), Italy

Project partner 14: Universitat de les Illes Balears (UIB), Spain

Project partner 15: Istituto Europeo per lo Sviluppo Socio Economico (ISES), Italy

6

1.2 Project workpackages and responsible organisations

With regards to the management structure of SALUX Project, the total work programme is divided

into 8 separate work packages as follows:

Workpackag

e number

Description of workpackage Name of responsible

organisation

Name of WP

contact person

WP1 Coordination of the project TECNOGRANDA, Italy Dario Vallauri

WP2 Dissemination of the project AGRO-HALL, France Lylia Guerouaou

WP3 Evaluation of the project MTT, Finland Terhi Latvala

WP4 Analysis of the local contexts Food RDI, Romania Adriana Macri

WP5 Definition and exchange of good practices

SFVS, Lithuania Zenonas StaneviČius

WP6 Organization of the follow-up of the food reformulation among SMEs

BOKU, Austria Wolfgang Kneifel

WP7 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

(CEA) of the major

reformulations identified

TECNOGRANDA, Italy Dario Vallauri

WP8 European Clearing House for agri-food SMEs and Consumers

ISES, Italy Carmine Flanaga

1.3 Evaluation activities

The goal of the evaluation approach is that evaluation activities should be a means not an end, and

part of the process of helping lead organizations and partnerships to achieve sustained project

outcomes. In essence, it should facilitate a reconsideration of objectives and processes, review

progress to date, and determine any course corrections that might be enacted.

In this SALUX project activities and evaluation tools were monitored continuously all during the

project life cycle, setting up specific guidelines and instructions for the smooth implementation of

the project. Monitoring and evaluation on the project process was conducted throughout the period

of project implementation. At regular intervals, the project activities were reported, analyzed and

compared with the project objectives and expected results. The results of these evaluation

activities were used to have improvements to the project with a consequent optimization of the

7

activities. The interim and final evaluation reports were prepared on the basis of documentation,

via survey forms, interviews / conferences with partners and with the project beneficiaries.

According to the Execute Agency for Health and Consumers (EACH) evaluation can be defined as

the systematic appraisal of the success of a project. Success refers both to the quality of the

project, whether the outcomes meet the needs of the target groups, and its results and the project

objectives have been achieved.

Depending on the purpose of the evaluation, a distinction is usually made between process and

effect evaluation (EACH 2005)1. Process evaluation (internal evaluation) is done during the project,

and aims to monitor the implementation process, improve the work in progress and increase the

likelihood that the project will be successful. Effect evaluation (external evaluation) aims to verify

that the project objectives have been achieved.

1.4 Partner responsibilities of the evaluation process

The evaluation was carried out according to the initially agreed activities in the approved

application form of the project and the evaluation plan presented by the WP3 leader of the project

(MTT, Finland). MTT compiled Evaluation plan including evaluation questionnaires used through

the project. MTT was also responsible for updating this document and questionnaires when

appropriate.

The SALUX project evaluation was implemented by regular basis by MTT and by external

evaluator. The evaluation responsibilities are divided to an internal and external evaluation. MTT

has main responsibility of the internal evaluation of the project. In April 2012 as a result of the call

for tender, the external evaluation is assigned to the Pro&Do srl. External evaluator focuses on the

effect evaluation of the SALUX project.

Process evaluation (internal evaluation) is done during the project, and aims to monitor the

implementation process, improve the work in progress and increase the likelihood that the project

will be successful. Effect evaluation (external evaluation) is usually done towards the end of the

project, and aims to verify if the project objectives have been achieved.

8

Contact details of WP3 leader and internal evaluator of the SALUX project

Name Dr. Terhi Latvala

Organisation: MTT Agrifood Research Finland

Address: Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland

Email: [email protected]

Skype: terhi.t.latvala

Contact details of the external evaluator

Name: Paola Bazzoni

Organisation: Pro&Do srl

Address: Via Varallo 11 28896 Quarna Sotto (VB) Italy


Skype: paola.bazzoni

1.5 Independent experts

SALUX project had totally five independent experts which were invited to participate to the

project meetings. After each project meeting they also evaluated the project success by

using the questionnaire developed by the WP3 leader (MTT). The CV of the external

evaluation experts are related at the Appendix 5.

9

2. Evaluation results

2.1 Summary of evaluation of the project progress

Terhi Latvala, MTT Agrifood Research Finland

All project participants were asked to respond to the questionnaire about their activities

during the reporting period 06/08/2011-05/02/2013 and reporting period 06/02/2013-

05/08/2014. The activity summary report form was sent to the participants including the

following four questions:

1. Work packages involved within this project period

2. Please describe research activities and outputs (reports, press releases etc.) under Work

Packages which you actively worked on in this reporting period. Note this is a summary

report only. Do not engage long descriptions; restrict your overview to short bullet points.

3. List deliverables and/or milestones reached in this reporting period (if relevant)

4. List any problems/deviations from the project work plan, or delayed progress towards

reaching forthcoming milestones and/or deliverables. State corrective actions being taken

to address problems.

The questionnaire was made by using Webropol survey system. The link to the

questionnaire was send via email to all participants. All participant organizations were

asked to respond to the first questionnaire before 22nd February 2013 and to the second

questionnaire before 11st August 2014. Because of the holiday season, some partners

were given longer time to answer. See detailed partner’s responses in appendix 1 and 2.

In first reporting period, the answers to question one showed that almost every

participating organization had mainly been involved in work packages 4, 5 and 6. The main

deliverables during the first reporting period were analysis and the reports of the local

context, translated as a short version to all project languages (WP4). Moreover, project

websites and different project materials were created and translated into project

languages. To communicate the goals and results about the project, also newsletters and

e-magazines were written.

10

Problems during the first reporting period were mainly focused on some delays and

challenges in contacting SME’s for information. This was mainly result of overlaps in the

methodologies in WP5 and WP6. To get SMEs involved, personal contacting was used

instead of on-line questionnaire.

Also problems with the project name were causing some extra work to some participants.

Apparently timing with such a big number of partners is challenging when speaking of

deadlines and strict timetables. However, major difficulties were not reported in project

progress.

In second reporting period, the most involved work packages were work packages 2 and

10, dissemination of the project and definition and exchange of good practices. Also many

participants were involved to work packages 6, 7 and 8. The main deliverables during the

second period were reports of work packages 5, 6 and 7. The reports of 5th and 6th work

packages were also translated to national languages.

The second period also included a lot of dissemination of the results and work for SALUX

websites and Clearing House. Almost all participants published project results in different

kind of formats during the period, and most of the participants also gathered publications

to the SALUX Clearing House. Some problems were reported relating to the low response

rates to the questionnaires and to the withdrawal of one partner. Also other minor

problems were reported, but mainly considering the timetable issues caused by the

challenges in gathering responses from the companies.

29. August 2014

Dr. Terhi Latvala

Project Manager

MTT Agrifood Research Finland


Tel: +358 29 531 7440

11

2.2 Evaluation of the partners’ satisfaction and involvement


All project participants were asked to respond to the questionnaire about their satisfaction

and involvement in the project twice during the project; during the mid-term evaluation and

for final evaluation. The five questions of the evaluation form were following. They were all

answered by the scale from 1 (not well at all) to 5 (extremely well), expect the question

five, which was an open question:

Questions: 2013 2014

Did you respect the deadlines fixed by the Project Coordinator? 4,07 4,00

Were the project goals and tasks well defined? 4,23 4,18

Did you receive appropriate support by the Project Coordinator? 4,21 4,17

Are the minutes of the meeting complete, in-time, include decision,

responsibility, deadline?

4,36 4,33

What are your proposals and suggestions about the best project

implementation?

(open question)

In addition all respondents had possibility to comment their answers in open comment

boxes after the question. The commenting possibility was still rarely used.

The questionnaire was made by using Webropol. The link to the questionnaire was send

via email to all participants. All participant organizations were asked to respond first time

before 22nd February 2013 and second time before 11st August 2014. 12 participants

responded to the both questionnaires. The Project Coordinator did not take part to this

questionnaire.

Overall the participants seemed to be satisfied to the project progress. The average

rating for the questions were between 4,07-4,36 in the first evaluation and 4,0-4,33 in the

second.

12

In first reporting period, in open question the respondents noticed some overlaps

between the WP’s and that way uncertainty when speaking of tasks required. The

communication between the partners was seen challenging and better ways to

communicate in international project were needed. The lack of resources for face-to-face

meeting was seen as problem. Also difficulties with deadlines were seen to be a problem.

There are two main reasons for that: on the other hand the project tasks were not meeting

the deadlines but on the other hand also the time given to answer or react was sometimes

very short.

In second reporting period, the communication between the partners was still seen

challenging and better ways to communicate in international project, as well as more

resources for face-to-face meeting would have been needed during the project (question

three). To improve future projects, participants wished for less bureaucracy from EU. They

hoped there would be more time to discussions between the partners, concerning both

methodologies and results. Nevertheless, mostly the project was seen as successful.

29. August 2014

Dr. Terhi Latvala

Project Manager



Tel: +358 29 531 7440

13

2.3 Summary of evaluation of the project meetings


Four different project meetings were evaluated (Helsinki 05/2012, Paris 04/2013, Budapest

01/2014, Turin 06/2014). The seven questions in the evaluation form were following and all

questions were all answered by the scale from 1 (not well at all) to 5 (extremely well):

Q1: Time to prepare the meeting (time to send the meeting agenda) was sufficient? Q2: The meeting’s goals were clearly stated and understood Q3: The topics in the agenda were appropriate at the current stage of SALUX Q4: The time allowed for the meeting was balanced with the number of topics planned Q5: The discussion was open enough to consider different opinions and options Q6: The participants knew what among the other members were working on and how they will contribute to the collective success Q7: The participants ended discussions with clear and specific resolutions and calls for action

The averages of the responses are seen in the Table 1. As table 1 shows, overall

evaluation and satisfaction with the project meetings was good as mean calculated from

responses was above the score 4. It seems that towards to the end of the project,

discussion about project resolution could have been improved.

Table 1. Meeting evaluation scores in four meetings.

Helsinki Paris Budapest Torino

Q1 4,64 4,45 4,79 4,19

Q2 4,79 4,64 4,57 4,13

Q3 4,74 4,64 4,71 4,25

Q4 4,32 4,45 4,57 3,88

Q5 4,95 4,55 4,43 4,06

Q6 4,26 4,18 4,36 4,44

Q7 4,47 4,09 4,50 3,81

Mean 4,60 4,43 4,56 4,11

14

In the survey form, the respondents were given possibility to comment on each question

and those open comments are reported below. Only few open comments and suggestions

were introduced to the questionnaires, so not too much weight should be given for

individual comments.

After Helsinki meeting suggested improvements were:

• More time to ongoing topics

• External presentations to the end of the meeting

• Use of name tags

• More time to administrative questions

• More clarification to financial issues

After Paris meeting suggested improvements were:

• Agenda could have been sent earlier and be more detailed and highlighted areas that needed

decisions and discussion.

• Current status of the report and financials could have been more explicitly addressed

• Appointing a chairperson (different than the main speaker) would improve the discussion.

• The emphasis should be on discussion about upcoming and ongoing WPs. This requires time to

reflect, so having this on the second day is not ideal.

After Budapest meeting suggested improvements were.

• Regarding Q3 (Topics in agenda) the relevance of Italian labeling case was unclear for one

participant.

• Regarding time allocation (Q4), one commented difficulties to keep the time table, but this was also

because of valuable discussion. Suggestion for this was to less repetition of previous work and goals

to give insights to the partners and particularly external reviewers.

• Regarding the discussion (Q5), it was considered valuable with external evaluators

• One partner had problems with receiving emails

• Regarding resolution of the meeting (Q7), one partner was not so sure if all participants understood

it

After Torino meeting (Final meeting) open comments were:

• Regarding the topics, final meeting could have reviewed finding form each WP, the aim should be

in conclusions

• Too much time allocated for discussion, only 15 minutes for participants presentations

• There could have more time and budget for made available for partners to correspond and visit

each other.

• Outputs from SALUX project need to be clarified so that engagement with SME’s can be achieved.

15

The open discussion was the most highly appreciated factor during the project meetings.

In general, the openness of the discussion also meeting goals and topics were seen as

understood and appropriate. The lowest scores were given in final meeting about the

conclusion of the project (Q7). Obviously, towards to the end of the project, positive trend

was seen how well participants knew what other member were working on.

29. August 2014

Dr. Terhi Latvala

Project Manager



Tel: +358 29 531 7440

16

2.4 External evaluation report

External evaluation report – RP01

Evaluation of the 1st project meeting in Helsinki, Finland 6.9.-7.9.2012

Preface

According to the Contract between Tecnogranda SpA and Pro&Do srl, relating to external

evaluation activities of Salux Project – WP3: Evaluation of the project, the present

documents summarizes results and considerations of external evaluation activities, carried

out during the 1st project meeting organized in Helsinki. (September 2012)

In particular, it satisfy assignments and tasks of the above Contract, at the point:

− Phase I: Participation to project meetings

− Phase II: Use of questionnaires, observations, interview, focus group, reports

Considerations included in this report result from analysis carried out on the fulfilled

questionnaires (Appendix 3 of the Evaluation Plan), collected by MTT from the external

evaluator and experts, attendant the whole meeting, and from direct observation of th

external evaluation during the meeting the same.

17

External evaluation results

Here after you can find quantitative results of the external evaluation questionnaires (ten

questions of the evaluation); they were all answered by the scale from 1 (not well at all) to

5 (extremely well):

1 How clear are SALUX communication around project issues? 3,5

2 How responsive is the SALUX to feedback? 4 3 How well has SALUX organized project meeting? 4

4 How well do you think the members of the SALUX consortium share ideas? 3,5

5

How well do you think the members of the SALUX consortium recognize and respect cultural differences? 4

6

How well do you think the members of the SALUX consortium support each other’s` work? 4

7

How well do you think the members of the SALUX consortium add value to each other’s work?

3

8 How well are the stakeholders involved? 3

9 How their contribute/question are recorded and valorized by SALUX? 4

10 How well are the SME involved in this phase of the project? 3

Average 3,7

Open comments from the external experts

General opinion is that the meeting is well organized: topics, activities plan are clear,

detailed and shared.

Furthermore all partners are correctly involved: presentation and discussion moments are

well planned and balanced, cultural difference and different opinions are recognized nad

integrated in project decisions; WP4 Report is a good example of open collaboration and

respect for each other’s work national culture, environment and work.

Even if the project is in the first period of activitiy, a better attention to involvement of

stakeholders had to be dedicated from the coordinator.

18

In consideration of great importance that impact on SME of project activities, great efforts

had to be dedicated from all partners in the next phases of the project; in particular a key

role had to be played by the project leader Tecnogranda, in fostering partner efforts

towards SME contacts and involvement.

Final considerations

As foreseen in the project, periodic contat activities will be planned and carried out with

the coordinator, WP 3 Leader and the other WP Leader, in order to monitor project

activities, from an evaluator point of view.

In particular Pro&Do will support the project Leader and the WP3 Leader, in collecting

informations and data from all partners, relating to the evaluation indicators.

In collaboration with Tecnogranda and MTT, Pro&Do will plan and manage skype

conferences and exchanges of mail with WP leaders.

Quarna Sotto, 26/08/2012

Per Pro&Do srl

ing. Paola Bazzoni


Evaluation of the 2nd period project deliverables and results

Preface

According to the Contract between Tecnogranda Spa and Pro&Do srl, relating to external



out at the end of the 1st project period (February 2013).

In particular it satisfy assignments and tasks of the above Contract, at the point:

Phase I: Participation to project meetings

Phase II: Use of questionnaires, observations, interview, focus group, reports.

Considerations included in this report result from analysis of:

− project website www.salux-project.eu

− newsletter (3)

− deliverable available – D2 Analysis of the context.

Furthermore Skype conferences were organized and managed with main WP Leader

(WP1, WP2, WP3, WP4, WP6, that are WP activated in this phase of the project).

20

External evaluation objectives and applied methodology

A specific methodology is developed in order to properly evaluate:

1. Seven evaluation factors, listed in the project

2. Achievement of Salux objectives, relating to output and outcomes indicators, listed in the

project.

Generally speaking, output and outcome indicators are both quantitative and qualitative;

so some evaluation board are designed and applied, where both scoreboard and

questions and free comments are included.

The general evaluation board is annexed at the end of the document. (Appendix 6).

Evaluation against seven factors

In particular scoreboard are designed in 5 scores (1: not well at all; 5: extremely well), in

order to guarantee a reasonable expression of evaluation and to permit a proper

calculation of average parameters.

The evaluation scoreboard is fitted to the specific object (website and newsletter,

deliverables, Skype conference) and applied.

Quantitative results are collected, elaborated and summarized in some tables.

Average per factor, average per deliverable, average per evaluator, total average per

external and internal evaluation are calculated.

Qualitative results, in term of answer to defined questions and free comments are

collected, analyzed and integrated, and summarized in a short report.

Evaluation of achievement of Salux objectives

Furthermore a general evaluation are carried out, following output and outcomes

indicators, and integrating them with qualitative results of the previous evaluation; results

are described in the last part of this report.

At the end of the first project period there is evidence only of achievements of the

Objective 1 of the project (Collection and analysis of data and information about food

reformulation, national rules and cultural values of food), that has only qualitative

parameters: so a qualitative evaluation is applied.

21

Evaluators

Five external evaluators are involved in this process: three external expert, involved in the

project in the meeting in Helsinki and two senior evaluators, skilled in technology transfer

to SME and dissemination process of R&D, innovation projects.

One of the strategic objectives of the external evaluation, as stated in Helsinki meeting, is

to foster improvement of partners activities, with the aim to maximize quality of the results,

and, at the end, impact of the project in the European target environment (stakeholders,

SME, consumers).

So project WP Leader are involved in a self-evaluation process: during Skype conference

they are required to reflect about their activities in the project and about results they

collaborate to; they are required to answer (where applicable) to questions relating to the

seven evaluation factors and to attribute a score to own activities and results.

Anonymity and privacy is granted, and only elaborations and summary of results will be

published.

Free comments and opinions, above all in term of suggestion to improve outcomes of the

project are encouraged.

The Skype conference evaluation board is annexed at the end of the document. (Appendix

7).

22


Here following quantitative evaluation results are listed:

External evaluators

Website

N° Topic Average

1 Effectiveness 3,2

2 Relevance 4,4

3 Impact 4

4 Sustainability 3,2

5 Transferability 3,5

6 Quality 3,8

7 Neighboring Countries 3,3

Total average 3,6

Newsletter (3)

N° Topic Average

1 Effectiveness 2,8

2 Relevance 4

3 Impact 3,6

4 Sustainability 3


6 Quality 3,5


Total average 3,4

D2 Deliverable

N° Topic Average

1 Effectiveness 4,4

2 Relevance 4,8

3 Impact 3,6



6 Quality 4,2


Total average 3,9

23

Internal evaluators

Skype conferences

N° Topic Average

1 Effectiveness 3,6

2 Relevance 4,3

3 Impact 3,6

4 Sustainability 4


6 Quality 4,2


Total average 3,78

Summary of external and internal evaluators

N° Topic External Internal Total

1 Effectiveness 3,5 3,6 3,53

2 Relevance 4,4 4,3 4,33

3 Impact 3,7 3,6 3,67

4 Sustainability 3,2 4,0 3,62

5 Transferability 3,5 3,6 3,53

6 Quality 3,8 4,2 4,01

7 Neighboring Countries 3,2 3,2 3,21

Total Average 3,62 3,78 3,70

A general good opinion about activities and results can be released, with a higher score for

evaluation related to D2 Deliverables.

Furthermore there is evidence of a significant alignment between evaluation by external

evaluators and evaluation by partners: in fact partners are well aware of value (and lacks)

of activities carried out and delivered results, in term of expected impact on the European

target environment and quality in relation with the state of the art.

Regarding to qualitative evaluation results, a general evaluation can be summarized as

follow.

Different results have to be considered in separated way: in particular, evaluation results

have to be treated separately for communication and dissemination tools, such as web site

and newsletter, and technical deliverables such as D2.

24

Web site and newsletter have in general a good structure, and in the case of website a

nice graphic aspect.

In both case contents relating to the project (objectives, work packages, expected results)

are well structured, but:

− some contents are not coherent in all languages of the projects (some newsletter are not translated in all language, web site map is not the same for all languages)

− communication language is affected from a scientific jargon: this approach potentially limits the overall comprehension of the project targets, losing incisiveness

− no evidence are present about involvement of stakeholders (links, n° of contacts, and so on)

− contents are strictly related to the project (objectives, goals, expected results, partners): no news are present about the “re-formulation world” such as seminars, links to other projects results, etc.

In particular asking registration to the website, it’s not so clear what’s the aim of the

request and what are the interest of stakeholders to be registered in.

The newsletter is a little bit too thin in content, which are related to the first results of the

project: aim of Salux had to be described more in detail, without losing the concept of a

leaflet easy to read.

The newsletters are not strongly appealing, in term of design and content. They should be

re-modulated trying to be more incisive and tackling topics that are considered sensitive

for the concerned sector

In general, the improvement of the listed aspects could deeply encourage the involvement

of stakeholders and transferability, which will reflect in improvement of impact and

sustainability.

The D2 report is well structured and written in a well arranged way; a clear methodology is

adopted and described; starting from an overview of the country’s reports where the

information is given progressively, easy to follow in the format of tables. Especially table

gives a very good synthesis of the programs, documents and agreements of the different

countries. The SWOT--�and STEEPV--�analyses further strengthen the report and

conclude the different trends.

25

A complete mapping of stakeholders (in particular Public Administration and NGO,

including consumer and industry associations) is carried out. The mapping is also very

homogenous in relation with involved countries: high effectiveness and relevance is

achieved.

A high level of engagement and contribution is evident from the participating countries.

In term of impact, major effort could be spent in order to extend the project network (and

analyses) to EU countries that are not directly involved in the project.

High quality of the report are an excellent premise for dissemination, and, at the end, to

achieve good impact if the information (report) will be spread in a good way within the

organizations of the stakeholders.

The D2 Report depicts a picture of great interest in reformulation in all EU countries

analyzed, in particular for PHAs; the complete mapping of single countries legislation and

context could be a good premise to the transferability of project results to other and

neighboring countries.

Output of Skype conference gives a general evaluation of the current state of the project,

made by partners (WP leader in particular); free text and comments supply interesting

suggestion, in order to improve project output and outcomes.

The partners in contacting and involving stakeholders spend an important effort: D2 results

are based on contacts with hundreds of stakeholders (PHa, SME, associations, etc.)

Results of involvement are very different in relation with specific country and specific

environment: in some countries where re-formulation is applied since many years

consciousness of enterprises are very high; in other countries interest is high in PHas and

several projcte for awareness of consumers and producer are set up; in the Eastern

Countries the problem has a more recent attention from PHas, but no best practice are set

up.

While there is a good satisfaction about WP2 methodology, it’s a general opinion that WP4

methodology (and in general dissemination and contact with stakeholders) had to be

improved, with the aim to enlarge the project network (relevance) and engagement of

stakeholders (impact, sustainability).

26

In particular, partner in contacting enterprises faces problem of industrial properties and

privacy.

In general, the problem of enlargement of project network (in number and quality of

involvement) is strongly felt by the partners, and some proposals are being elaborating,

with the aim to overcome the obstacle.

Relating to transferability, reformulation is an important cost for SME; dissemination and

sharing of best practice (among PHas in different countries, among enterprises) will be the

strategic value of Salux.

Furthermore, Salux project can act as a link between PHas and SME, in applying

reformulation.

Lively interest of institution for reformulation and Salux approach are a good premise for

sustainability of future project activities; furthermore there is a need in the food market to

establish and maintain a bridge between PHas and enterprises, that’s one of the main

value of Salux.

But sustainability are strongly linked to the capacity of Salux in involving a great amount of

stakeholders, showing the “real benefit” of Salux and in supplying them useful information

regularly: the Clearing house could be a power vehicle to achieve this goal.

Transferability is one of the next objective of the project: ti’s appear not as an easy work

but the simplicity and success and impact of some best practice (as agreement between

Health Ministry and bakers association for reduction of salt in Italy) are encouraging.

High quality of results and activities are ensured when there is a good involvement and

coordination of alla partners: improvement is expected in managing and carrying out WP6

and WP7.

Some partners began to contacts institutions in neighboring countries such as Switzerland,

Poland, Greece, Serbia, but more efforts must be spent in this direction; help can come

from the involved external expert and the other experts to be involved.

27

Arising suggestions and proposals:

Effectiveness of contact with the contact could be improved in quantity by means of an

automatic web tool to send newsletter, and evolving the website from the pure project

information to a wider communication tool for the concerned competence area, and in

quality by using direct contacts such as call phone, seminars and workshops.

The enlargement of the partnership is not considered a good way to enlarge the project

networks; other wise an effective link with other projects in the same sector could

empower impact of project result and improve sustainability. Joint initiative to cross

compare methodologies and results could lead to improve relevance and adaptability.

More frequent technical meeting (or Skype conferecnce at least) could be an effectiveness

tools to improve coordination of technical WP (such as WP 5 e 6), with the effect to

improve quality of results.

Final considerations and suggestions

In general a good availability to evaluation and improvement are detected, even no

contacts is possible with WP 5 Leader (SFVS); even a strong motivation in achieve

project results is detected.

High quality of partnership is one of the main premise for project success.

Better effort must be done in order to:

- attracting stakeholders by means of more incisiveness: e.g. the section dedicated to the

questionnaire and to the members doesn’t report any description on what for, a

communication language as to be used (instead of a project and scientific jargon)

- better attention must be put in improve number and quality of stakeholders, designing and

applying different (or enhanced) communication tools; each partner had to be well-aware

about that objective; an detailed dissemination plan could be designed, with defined

activities and clear responsible of each partner

− better evidence had to be done in the website and newsletter to number and quality of

contacts with stakeholders: this could guarantee correct evaluation of project output and

outcome, and enforce dissemination activities

28

− a better respect of planned deadline, and sharing of some concerning working documents,

will allow the evaluators to properly evaluate deliverables,

− a more effective involvement of European Commission (technical and regulatory

institutions) in project activities and results (in particular in joint initiative if they are

defined with other projects) had to be evaluated from the partnership, in order to improve

adaptability, impact, transferability and sustainability.

Omegna, 28/04/2013

Per Pro&Do srl

ing. Paola Bazzoni

29


Evaluation of the 3rd period project deliverables and results

Preface

According to the Contract between Tecnogranda Spa and Pro&Do srl, relating to external



out during and at the end of the 3rd project period.

Furthermore, the present documents summarizes results and considerations of external

evaluation activities, carried out during the 3rd meeting in Budapest and the final meeting in

Turin (June 2014).

In particular, it satisfy assignments and tasks of the above Contract, at the point:

− Phase I: Participation to project meetings

− Phase II: Use of questionnaires, observations, interview, focus group, reports

− Phase III: Editing and presentation of the final evaluation report of the project (M18 e M36).

Considerations included in this report result from analysis of:

− project website www.salux-project.eu

− newsletter (8)

− Deliverable of the project.

Furthermore, Skype conferences were organized and managed with main WP Leader, in

order to monitor the general evolution of project activities, in term of resources and actions

committed by the partners, in order to achieve the expected impact.

Furthermore, evaluation and comments from the external expert where collected by

specific evaluation boards, developed in order to ensure a comprehensive and objective

evaluation activity: a detailed description of the adopted methodology is contained in the

following chapters.

30

External evaluation objectives and applied methodology

Following results of external evaluation, checked and discussed during the project meeting

in Paris, an upgrade of the external evaluation methodology is developed, with the aim to:

1) focus the attention of partners, in particular WP Leaders, on actions and resources, to be

committed to the achievement of impact factors (measured by means of the seven parameters)

2) support partners and evaluators in their activities, by means of shared and comprehensive

evaluation tools.

So two further evaluation tools were developed and implemented:

a) tables for evaluation data collection, in order to collect specific data, expected for single project

objectives, that are customized for each WP Leader concerned for specific Objectives and target

data

b) Deliverable scoreboard, listing the specific parameters and target expected for each objective, and

at the end, for each related Deliverable.

Tables for evaluation data collection are reported at the Appendix 8.

An example of a Deliverable scoreboard is reported at the Appendix 9.

Other external evaluation tools (specific scoreboard, as mentioned in the above periodic evaluation reports) were applied also during the 3rd project period.


Here after average figures about evaluation of Deliverables, carried out by external evaluators:

D4: Report about the follow-up conducted in the project countries to assess the number of

reformulations in the participating countries

WP6 D4 Evaluation Report

Total

1 Effectiveness 3,4

2 Relevance 4,4

3 Impact 3,9



6 Quality 4,4


Total Average 3,8

31

D6: Report about the identification and exchange of good practices and experiences in the

food reformulation all over the EU


1 Effectiveness 3,2

2 Relevance 3,9

3 Impact 4,0


5 Transferability 4

6 Quality 4,3


Total Average 3,9

D7: Report about the Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of the major food reformulations

of SMEs of the participating countries


Media Total

1 Effectiveness 3,8

2 Relevance na

3 Impact 3,5



6 Quality 3,5

7 Neighboring Countries na

Total Average 3,6

32

A comparison between quantitative results, achieved during the project, and the expected results. The table below shows that all target are achieved and, in many cases, clearly overtake.

Obj WP WP Title Del Data required TOTAL Target

2 5

Report about

the Good

Practices D6

Number of food reformulated among the SMEs

located in the participating areas (at least 150 SMEs) 127 150

3 6 Report on

follow-up D4

Number of contacted organizations/ experts (at

least 50 in total) 1218 50

Collaboration with the SMEs and NGOs dealing with

the project issues (at least 100 in total) 719 100

5 7

Cost

effectiveness

analysis D7

Number of organizations/experts/SMEs adopting

the developed model 54

6 8 Dissemination D5

Mailing list and number of invitations to join the

platform (at least 1000 contacts in total) 2030 1000

That results can be considered very important, because they are the quantitative evidence of significant activities, carried out by partners towards SME, in order to guarantee and maximize impact of project results.

Furthermore, height newsletter were edited and diffused.

The Clearing House is implemented, and relevant documents are regularly uploaded.

The website is currently updated with project news, and all Deliverables are uploaded and

available for consultation and download.

A satisfaction survey was achieved among the websites visitors. Her after some figures about results of the survey:

1. What is your overall satisfaction rating with SALUX follow

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Neither Satisfied Nor

Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

39,64%

4,02% 0,60%

1. What is your overall satisfaction rating with

SALUX follow

A satisfaction survey was achieved among the websites visitors. Her after some figures

1. What is your overall satisfaction rating with SALUX follow-up and cost benefit

analysis?

Number Percentage

275

197

Neither Satisfied Nor 20

3

2

497

55,33%

0,40%


SALUX follow-up and cost benefit analysis?

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied


Very Dissatisfied

33

A satisfaction survey was achieved among the websites visitors. Her after some figures

up and cost benefit

Percentage

55,33%

39,64%

4,02%

0,60%

0,40%

100,00%


up and cost benefit analysis?

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

2. How likely are you to recommend the participation in the project to a colleague or

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied


Dissatisfied


Very Dissatisfied

41,45%

7,44%1,01%

2. How likely are you to recommend the

participation in the project to a colleague or


other SMEs?

Number Percentage

248

206


5

1

497

49,90%

1,01% 0,20%



other SMEs?

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

34


Percentage

49,90%

41,45%

7,44%

1,01%

0,20%

100,00%



Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

3.a. Please rate your level of satisfaction about the following issues: Responsiveness

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied


Dissatisfied


Very Dissatisfied

47,48%

7,65% 1,21%

3.a. Please rate your level of satisfaction about

the following issues: Responsiveness


Number Percentage

216

236


6

1

497

43,46%

1,21% 0,20%



Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

35


Percentage

43,46%

47,48%

7,65%

1,21%

0,20%

100,00%



Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

3.b. Please rate your level of satisfaction about the following issues: Clearness of

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied


Dissatisfied


Very Dissatisfied

48,49%

7,44% 1,01%

3.b. Please rate your level of satisfaction about

the following issues: Clearness of questions


questions

Number Percentage

213

241


5

1

497

42,86%

1,01% 0,20%



Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

36


Percentage

42,86%

48,49%

7,44%

1,01%

0,20%

100,00%



Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

3.c. Please rate your level of satisfaction about the following issues: Professionalism

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied


Dissatisfied


Very Dissatisfied

39,24%

9,05% 1,21%

3.c. Please rate your level of satisfaction about

the following issues: Professionalism


Number Percentage

251

195

either Satisfied Nor 45

6

0

497

50,50%

1,21% 0,00%



Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

37


Percentage

50,50%

39,24%

9,05%

1,21%

0,00%

100,00%



Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

3.d. Please rate your level of satisfaction about the following issues: Understanding of

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied


Dissatisfied


Very Dissatisfied

40,64%

12,88% 1,01%

3.d. Please rate your level of satisfaction about

the following issues: Understanding of SMEs


SMEs needs

Number Percentage

225

202


5

1

497

45,27%

1,01% 0,20%



needs

Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

38


Percentage

45,27%

40,64%

12,88%

1,01%

0,20%

100,00%



Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied



Very Dissatisfied

4. May we contact you about any of your responses?

Yes

No

5. Which of the following best describes your industry?

Reformulating products

Not reformulated products

Interested to reformulate

products

4. May we contact you about any of your

24,75%

5. Which of the following best describes your

4. May we contact you about any of your responses?

Number Percentage

270

227

497


Number Percentage

78

296

Interested to reformulate 123

497

54,33%

45,67%


responses?

15,69%

59,56%

24,75%


industry?




products

39

Percentage

54,33%

45,67%

100,00%


Percentage

15,69%

59,56%

24,75%

100,00%


Yes

No





products

40

High level of satisfaction is depicted from these figures.

As in RP2, Skype conferences were organized and managed with the relevant WP Leader

(that is to say WP5, WP7 and WP8).

Output of Skype conference gives a general evaluation of the current state of the project,

made by partners; the same board and methodology of RP2 was used, in order to obtain

comparable data; free text and comments supply interesting suggestion, in order to

improve project output and outcomes.

Here following synthesis figures are summarized:

Param Description Avg

1 Effectiveness 4,3

2 Relevance 4,7

3 Impact 4,7



6 Quality 4,7

7 Neighboring countries 4,3

TOTAL 4,5

41

Final consideration

Here following an average evaluation of Deliverables is reported: a general good level of

quality and compliance to the objective of the project is maintained.

DELIVERABLES Evaluation AVG

Effectiveness 3,9

Relevance 4,6

Impact 3,7

Sustainability 3,6

Transferability 3,6

Quality 4,0

Neighboring countries 3,0

AVG 3,8

Furthermore, the comparison between the second and the third reporting period shows an improvement of the general level of results (deliverables, project management, etc.); here after the comparison table.

DELIVERABLES Evaluation RP2 RP3 AVG

Effectiveness 3,5 3,8 3,7

Relevance 4,4 3,0 3,7

Impact 3,7 4,0 3,9

Sustainability 3,3 3,8 3,6

Transferability 3,5 4,0 3,7

Quality 3,9 4,2 4,0

Neighboring countries 3,2 2,4 2,8

AVG 3,7 4,0 3,8

A general effort of the project leader and of all partner, that the external evaluation team revealed during the project ‘meetings and Skype interview, is showed in the results above.

Unlike of other project, in Salux project the presence of a clear and recognized role and activity of external evaluation generates a positive effect on the general behavior of the activities in the project.

In fact, the regular debate about compliance of activities and results to the impact and outcome parameters focused the attention of all partners on that matter, afoster the achievement of expected targets.

Omegna, 8/09/2014

the regular debate about compliance of activities and results to the impact and outcome parameters focused the attention of all partners on that matter, afoster the achievement of expected targets.

Per Pro&Do srling. Paola Bazzoni

42

the regular debate about compliance of activities and results to the impact and outcome parameters focused the attention of all partners on that matter, and at the end

Per Pro&Do srl ing. Paola Bazzoni

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Project partner’s individual activity responses – first reporting

period

Please describe research activities and outputs (reports, press releases etc.) under

Work Packages which you actively worked on in this reporting period.

WP1: P10: BOKU participated at the Kick-off-Meeting in Luxembourg and at the 1st Project Meeting in Helsinki.

BOKU delivered the requested input for the 1st interim report P14: Assistance to and active participation in all project meetings (Luxembourg and Helsinki, Skype

conference). Reporting on financial issues

P4: We are steadily in contact with the coordinators. We participated in skype conference. We participated in the meetings. We reported on problems and solutions.

P1: Overall coordination of the project Organization of project meetings

P2: Project coordination, collecting of documentation P9: Our representative in Steering Comitee participated on Kick-off meeting, 1 st meeting in Helsinki and

skype conference. P12: Participation of project meeting in Luxembourg 09/2011, in Helsinki 09/2012.

Participation of project skype meetings P15: WP Leader supporting P13: Coordination of the activities

WP2:

P10: BOKU presented the aims and first outcomes of SALUX project at a conference in Vienna BOKU translated texts for posters, flyers and website into German language BOKU prepared the stakeholder Analysis for Austria

P5: Stakeholders analysis: *identification of the key stakeholders groups in Romania; *Preparation of a contact list of key stakeholders groups *development of the stakeholders' participation matrix Translation of the SALUX website into Romanian language Translation of the SALUX flyer from English to Romanian language Translation of the SALUX poster from English to Romanian language

P14: Elaboration of a contact list of Spanish stakeholders relevant to the SALUX project. Translation to Spanish of SALUX information and materials for WEB site, posters and brochures.

P6: Campden BRI Research Summary Sheet and Newsletter item. Both disseminated to Campden BRI member companies.

P8: Dissemination of SALUX project through Agrohall website and newsletter Writing quarterly newsletters for reporting the news of SALUX project to stakeholders and convey a description of the different next stapes for partners as well as brief notes of interesting news recently appeared. Writing of E-magazine. This one will be issued twice for the whole duration of the project. Wrinting Analysis of the local contexts report regarding France (WP4). Collect of the best practices concerning the reformulation of manufacturing foodstuff.

44

P1: Overview of dissemination activities (e-newsletter, e-magazine,...) DIssemination of the project in national and international events (Salone del Gusto, October 2012)

P2: Information about the project dissemination, Determination of the target groups for the dissemination activities

P11: Placing the Salux project in the Campden BRI Hungary web site Preparing 1-1 page brochures about the Salux project for the open days of Campden BRI Hungary 2011 and 2012 (different from the project's one) Presentation of the Salux project in the annual meeting of Hungarian Nutrition Society in October 2012.

P9: 1.Asked materials and translations for project website. 2.Presentation of the SALUX, its aim, methodology and goals to the representatives of Slovenian Ministry for Agriculture and Environment, Biotechnical Faculty University of Ljubljana, Chambre of Commerce and representatives of Slovenian food manufactures. 3.Presentation of the project at the largest Slovenian agrofood fair AGRA 2012. Reports and photos.

P12: Responsible of organising project meeting in Helsinki 08-09/2012 Translation of web pages 03/2012 Translation of project flyer and poster 12/2012 Press release 08/2012 - invitation to project meeting in Helsinki Article in Ruoka-Suomi publication 08-09/2012 Translation of local context report 11/2012-01/2013 Press release 01-02/2012 about WP4 Local Context Report

P15: ISES has organized the tender to find the provider of the website and information material? ISES supported the suppliers for the implementation of the web platform and development of the information material

P13: Update of the website with the information on developments of the activities

WP3:

P10: Completing the questionnaires for the evaluation report P14: Fulfillment of the current questionnaires. P1: Overview of evaluation activities, organization of interaction between internal and external evaluation P11: Answering the questionnaires of the WP. P12: Draft of Evaluation Plan finished 05/2012, Participation of skypemeeting about evaluation plan P13: participation in the meetings

WP4:

P10: Collection and analysis of data and information about food reformulation, national rules and cultural values of food in Austria. Survey among Austrian SMEs SWOT Analysis STEEPV Analysis

P5: preparing a PPt presentation on WP4 activities for Kick-off meeting in Luxembourg As a WP Leader we firstly elaborated the Methodology to collect and analysis the data and information which was approved by all project partners. Then our team carried out the analysis of the Romania's situation regarding food reformulation, national laws and regulations, cultural value , but also technological and economical barriers. This analysis was performed using as tools questionnaires and also organizing two Focus groups.The obtained data and information were analyzed using SWOT and STEEPV analyses. Collection the country reports of the project partners, study of them and analysis of the available data and information about the food reformulation, national regulations, technological/economic barriers and cultural values. Comparing different situations in the participating countries and drawing the final conclusions elaboration of WP4 Report preparing PPt presentation on WP4 report ; present it at the First project meeting in Helsinki

45

Translation into Romanian language of the final WP4 Report? P14: Contacts made with representatives of industries, technical-research centers, consumers, researchers

and the national agency AESAN concerned with the issue of food reformulation. SWOT and STEEPV analysis integrating personal comments from the aforementioned representatives. Bibliographical and internet search. Elaboration and writing of the report reflecting the Spanish local context regarding food reformulation.

P3: The analysis was consisted of the literature review and 2 focus groups discussions, using 5 different tools: questionnaire for reviewing literature; questionnaire for focus group discussions on food reformulation with representatives of policy makers and research; questionnaire for focus group discussions on food reformulation with representatives of the food industry and consumer organizations; self-assessment workshop using SWOT analysis for food reformulation; self-assessment workshop using STEEPV analysis for food reformulation.

P7: collect articles for the current situation in Germany P6: Several focus groups set up.

Collected information about UK approaches to diet and health regulation, legislation and guidance. Contributed to the report.

P4: We contacted over 100 SME, consumer organisations and representatives of politics. We also had a one-day discussion forum in February 2012 with members of SME, consumer organisations and representatives of politics (the whole meeting was recorded and written down). We sent questionaires to more than 100 representatives of SME, consumer organisations and representatives of politics. We provided a thorough report about the German situation with regard to reformulation of food. An internal report in German was completed. Our own homepage on Salux was set up.

P1: Editing of Report of local context in Italy Interaction with key actors in reformulation in Italy

P2: Suplying all information to the WP 4 partners P11: Organizing 2 focus groups. Evaluation of the discussion in the groups.

Report of the local context of food reformulation of Hungary. Evaluation of the WP4 report. Translation of the short version of the WP4 report.

P9: Collection and analysis (SWOT, STEEPV) of data about food reformulation, national regulative and cultural values of food in Slovenia. Report

P12: Conducting focus group discussion 02/2012 Finalising report of the Finnish local context 03/2012 Translation of short version of Loxal context report 11/2012-01/2013

P15: ISES supported Tecnogranda in each phase of development of the analysis of the local context P13: legal analysis of the local contexts

WP5:

P10: Translating the questionnaires for WP 5 into German language Collecting examples of good practice in food reformulation Conducting survey on good practice campaigns in the food reformulation in Austria Conducting survey on good practice in manufacture of reformulated food among Austrian SMEs

P5: Studying the methodology regarding exchanging the good practices in food reformulation proposed definition of good practices(GP) sending the questionnaires on GP campaigns in food reformulations to the key groups of stakeholders sending the questionnaires on GP in manufacture of reformulated food to SMEs Evaluation of information from the questionnaires elaboration of Country Report and send it to WP5 Leader

P14: Selection of targets to be addressed. Translation of the WP5 questionnaires on good practice campaigns in food reformulation and in manufacture of reformulated food to Spanish, writing of the letter of invitation, distribution of the questionnaires and letter of invitation. Analysis of the responses received and selection of the two best examples of good practices in food reformulation in Spain on the basis of criteria agreed within WP5.

46

Translation to English of the two examples selected and definitions of best practices. P3: Definition of good practices in food reformulation. Three examples on good practices on food

reformulation among the participants in the survey were identified according to the evaluation procedure in WP5.

P6: Sent survey to selected UK competent authorities, manufacturers associations, SMEs and research bodies.

P4: We initially checked the legal situation in Germany for advertising food reformulation. We screened the German situation for positive experience with food reformulation. We contacted an array of companies in order to get such information. We have the poster and brochure now at our disposal.

P1: Overview of methodology set up Start of questtionnaire/interviews

P2: Preparation of the methodology and questionnaire for the WP 5. Dispatch to the partners P11: Translation of the WP5 questionnaire P9: Translation and delivery the invitation letter and questionnaire forms for collecting information on good

practise campaigns in food reformulations and examples of good practice in manufacture of reformulated food conducted in the last 5 years.

P12: Translation of questionnaires Data collection Report of Finnish Good practices and filled templates 01/2013

P15: ISES supported Tecnogranda in each phase of development of the definition and exchange of good practices

WP6:

P10: BOKU is leading WP 6 and hence was in charge with the overall planning and coordination of WP 6 activities in the consortium. Developing WP 6 methodology (presented to partners in Helsinki) and implementation of partner comments. Developing all tools (questionnaire, invitation letter, internal communication) Coordinating the translation of the questionnaire into all project languages Implementation of the online survey Coordination and maintenance of the overall WP 6 online survey (backup data, monitoring survey progress,..) Conducting WP 6 survey in Austria (establish contact lists of relevant SMEs, contact SMEs, remind SMEs)

P5: studying the methodology of the organization of the follow-up of the food reformulation among SMEs preparing a database of food SMEs (appr.200 companies) translation of the questionnaire, the Invitation letter and the "Thank you" E-mail into Romanian sending the questionnaire to SMEs?

P14: Elaboration of a strategy for the construction of a representative mailing list of SMEs to be addressed. Elaboration of the mailing list.? Translation of the questionnaire to Spanish, writing of the letter of invitation, distribution of the questionnaires and letter of invitation to the mailing list.? Re-evaluation of the strategy for the selection of targets to be addressed (this step has been necessary owing to the low number of responders encountered in the first place, see below). ?

P3: All WP6 tools were translated into national language and sent back to BOKU. The validity of online national survey was checked. The final link was implemented into invitation letter and survey has been started. Collecting info, monitoring the survey and answering to respondents (thank you e-mail) is running now. By the end of March the survey feedback will be translated into English and country report will be completed.

P7: translation of the Questionaire in German P6: Sent survey to SMEs using different routes to increase survey numbers sent. Total sent was over

2,000. P4: We sent off letters to motivate SME to fill in the questionaires online (this task is still running). ?

We were involved in discussions with the German company Salux to moderate their view with regard to legal issues in the use of "Salux"

P1: Overview of methodology set up?

47

Start of questtionnaire/interviews P2: Sending an official letter with an invitation to fill a WP6 questionnaire to the stakeholders. P11: Translation of the WP6 questionnaire and invitation letter into Hungarian. Collecting the addresses of

Hungarian SMEs in Food industry. Sending e mail to them and calling the representatives of companies to answer about food reformulation.

P9: Contacting the food manufacturers and present them the aim of WP 6 and the questionary. P12: Translation of questionnaires 11-12/2012?

Reminders sent to the emailing list to get more answers P15: ISES contacted 100 companies by e-mail and telephone to arrange the italian follow-up of the project

WP7:

P10: No activities

WP8:

P10: No activities P7: translation/correction of the brochure/Poster in German P9: Promote the European clearing house for Agri-food SMEs and Comsumers, its aim and posibilities of

use its services in future. P12: Stakeholder analysis 12/2011

List deliverables and/or milestones reached in this reporting period (if relevant)

P10: Milestone: Identification of all the tools (questionnaire, forums, meetings) to perform the follow-up P5: deliverable: Analysis of the local context

milestone: Report on Analysis of the local context P14: UIB has contributed as requested by the respective WP leaders to the deliverables and milestones

reached by the project so far. P6: Report for WP4 P8: 4 newsletters

E-magazine written Analysis of the local contexts report regarding France

P4: Thorough report of the results of WP4 P1: Project website

Analysis of the local context Project meeting reports E-newsletters E-magazine

P11: 1-1 page brochures about the Salux project Presentation of the Salux project in power point Report of local context of food reformulation of Hungary Translation of the short version of the WP4 report in Hungarian.

P9: Project Website is online Analysis of the local context

P12: Publication of Local Context Report published 01-02/2012 P15: Project website

Analysis of the local context Project meeting reports Digital platform Report about the Good Practices identified and collected Information Project Material

48

List any problems/deviations from the project work plan, or delayed progress towards reaching forthcoming milestones and/or deliverables. State corrective actions being taken to address problems.

P10: In WP 6 we have a small delay because of difficulties in sorting out overlaps in the methodologies of WP 5 and WP 6.

P14: The main problem we are facing is the difficulty in getting SMEs involved so that they access the on line questionnaire on food reformulation produced by the project (WP6). The corrective action we are taking is the re-evaluation of the overall strategy for the selection of the targets to be addressed. We are now focusing in intensifying the contacts with technological centers and in personalizing the contacts with quality and innovation managers in SMEs through phone talks.

P6: Difficulty in getting responses to surveys for WP 5 and 6. For WP 5, responses received were 1 completed survey and replies from 2 other groups. For WP 6 we received 10 completed surveys. Corrective actions were to chase up personal contacts.

P8: In the event of Hardship understanding of tasks to do, make early contact with the partner responsible for WP concerned.

P4: We are facing some delay in WP5 and WP6 because of the name problems due to the Germany company Salus which made action impossible for us until the name was changed to Salux. A lot of activities and time had to be spent in this regard (changes of email system, homepage, information of partners, meeting with the German Salus company, correspondence with the coordinator).

P1: Delay in the start of WP5 and WP6 due to the attempt of joining both activities in a combined online questionnaire. The selected approach was to keep the 2 activities in 2 separate questionnaires. The deadline for WP5 and WP6 conclusion was extended.

P11: Short time is given to answer or to translate project materials. Delay in the planned deadlines.

P9: We have delay in WP 5. Deadline to send a report was the end of January. We intensively work to finish it.

P12: Some delays due to delayed Project Manager recruitment. She was able to start to work in 04/2012.

49

Appendix 2: Project partner’s individual activity responses – second reporting

period

Please describe research activities and outputs (reports, press releases etc.) under

Work Packages which you actively worked on in this reporting period.

WP1 P11: Cambden BRI Hungary (CBHU) followed the instruction of the project coordinator P1: Project Coordination

Interim technical and financial reporting Amendment

P9: Coordination of project activities on the national lavel in Slovenia. P4: contact during conference; skype telephone conference; discussion on legal issues with German

company; discussion of problems with high workload after withdrawal of 2nd German partner P12: Participating project meetings in Paris 04/2013, Budapest 01/2014 and in Turin 06/2014. Participating

skype meetings. P14: Assistance to and active participation in all project meetings

Reporting on financial issues P6: Participated in consortium meetings in Paris, Budapest and Turin WP2

P11: In 2012 CBHU presented the project in the meeting of the Hungarian Nutrition Society and in 2012, 2013 and 2014 in the open day of the CBHU. CBHU used the leaflet and poster, got from Italy. CBHU has made some own infornmation as well. In 2014 CBHU made an article and a title advertisement in the Hungarian Scientific Journal Élelmiszer Tudomány

P1: Presentation of SALUX at conferences, seminars, workshops (1 training course and 3 exhibitions/events) Summary of SALUX in a brochure edited by EAHC on relevant funded projects Consolidation of the stakeholders list in Italy Links and info exchange with 8 EU/national projects on topics relevant to SALUX

P9: 4 presentation of Salux project on the conferences 1 poster presentation at agrofood fair AGRA 1 presentation for preschool children – puppet schow in kinder garten

P4: workshops, press release, scientific paper submission, poster presentations, oral presentation of Salux for industries, handouts, flyer distribution, emails to more than hundert companies and organisations

P8: Writing an article about Salux activities and objectives in "Process alimentaire" an expert magazine in the agri-food. Introduction of SALUX Project objectives and invite them to register on clearinghouse (Network broadcast : Linkedin, liste groupe d'hygiène) Writing an article regarding Salux in most Agrohall newsletters. Realization of E-newsletters and E-magazine and participation in the creation of dissemination tools.

P5: Promote the project and its results through: PPt project presentations and poster at seminars, workshops, different meetings with food industry and representatives of policy makers, researchers, food for Life Platform meetings distributions of project flyers within seminars, workshops, food exhibitions where food stakeholders , particularly industry, were present.

50

2 press releases in a national Newspaper promote the project on IBA site

P15: Website management P12: Press release 02/2013. Webnews, Ruokatieto 02/2013. MTT News letter about WP5 06/2014.

Upcoming press release about the ending of the project and WP6 and WP7 08/2014. Publication of the reports in MTT website. Upcoming scientific presentation in ERIAF Conference 08-09/2014. Inviting stakeholders to the SALUX Clearing House via email 06/2014.

P14: Elaboration and update of a contact list of Spanish stakeholders relevant to the SALUX project. Translation to Spanish of SALUX information and materials for WEB site, posters and brochures. Introduction of SALUX objectives and results in 4 National seminars/congresses related to Nutrition and health: 1) “II Encuentro Escuela de Salud Pública” (September 17-18, 2012, Mahón, Menorca); 2) “Workshop: Alimentación Saludable y Sostenible. Jornada sobre retos y Oportunidades Empresariales en el Marco Europeo de Health Claims y Comunicación al Consumidor” (Healthy and Sustainable Food. Workshop on business challenges and opportunities in the European framework of health claims and communication to consumers) (May 10, 2013, Palma de mallorca); 3) “VI Seminario sobre Alimentación Saludable y Nuevos Alimentos” (6th Seminar on Healthy Food and Novel Food) (3-5 July 2013, Granada, Spain); 4) VI Meeting of the Spanish Foundation of Dietitians and Nutritionists (FEDN) (to be held on 16-18 october, 2014, Valencia, Spain) Participation of Prof. Dr. Andreu Palou (Director of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Nutrition and Biotechnology of the UIB) in a debate on functional foods in the television program of TVE2 "Para Todos La Dos“ (November 15, 2012). Media insert: news about SALUX in the front page of the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) portal (http://www.uib.es/) (from December 22, 2012 to January 8, 2013) Press release: "Investigadors de la UIB participen en la xarxa del projecte SALUX; te com a objectiu impulsar la reducció del contingut de greix, sal i sucre dels aliments manufacturats" (Researchers from the UIB participate in the SALUX project, aimed at promoting the reduction of the fat, salt and sugar content of manufactured foods). Diario de Mallorca, January 10, 2013. Link to SALUX Project in the WEB page of the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Nutrition and Biotechnology of the UIB.

P6: Participated in Salux seminars in Paris, Budapest and Turin Wrote a white paper on reformulation that was disseminated to SMEs Salux information dissemibated at Campden BRI conferences and open day Attended PLEASURE conference in La Rochelle, Salux information disseminated here and poster visible to participants of the larger JAS meeting

WP3

P11: CBHU answered all questionnaires. P1: Coordination of internal and external evaluation

Involvement of 5 expert evaluators from non participating countries (Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Greece)

P9: We were present on all Saux eeting and were active in all evaluation questionnaires. P4: particiaption in all evaluation procedures P12: Meeting evaluations (Paris, Budapest and Turin). Midterm- and final evaluation of the project. Skype

meetings about evaluation. P14: Fulfilment of questionnaires. P6: Compleed surveys WP4

P11: CBHU made focus group meetings and a report about the local context of food reformulation. The final report of WP! was translated

P1: None P3: Literature review protocols for legislation and other official documents issued by authorities, reviewing

standards, codes of practice and recommendations of professional associations and public-interest non-governmental associations,recommendations of scientific panels of national agencies/

51

governmental organisations, or international agencies. Focus group discussions of food reformulation with the representatives of policy makers and research and the representatives of the food industry and consumer. organizations.

P9: We did analyses of local contexts including SWOt and STEEPV analyses. P4: detailed report including results from expert round table P12: Finished. P14: Contacts made with representatives of industries, technical-research centers, consumers, researchers

and the national agency AESAN concerned with the issue of food reformulation. SWOT and STEEPV analysis integrating personal comments from the aforementioned representatives. Bibliographical and internet search.

Elaboration and writing of the report reflecting the Spanish local context regarding food reformulation. Translation of the WP4 deliverable report from English to Spanish.

WP5

P11: The questionnaires were translated. CBHU interwieved the food companies which have made food reformulation and the results were translated and sent to WP leader. The final report was translated.

P1: Contribution to collecting data (questionnaires on good practices in Italy) and editing final report P3: Collecting information on good practices. P9: We did definition and exchange of good practicesacording the WP5 leader instructions. P4: collection of examples verifying good pratice in food reformuation P5: *IBA report on Definition and Exchange of good practices in food reformulation;

most relevant 3 examples of good practice campaigns in FR 3 examples of good practice in manufacture of reformulated food *Translated the WP5 final Report into national language

P12: Translation of the report, MTT news letter of the report. P14: Selection of targets to be addressed.

Translation of the WP5 questionnaires on good practice campaigns in food reformulation and in manufacture of reformulated food to Spanish, writing of the letter of invitation, distribution of the questionnaires and letter of invitation. Analysis of the responses received and selection of the two best examples of good practices in food reformulation in Spain on the basis of criteria agreed within WP5. Translation to English of the two examples selected and definitions of best practices. Translation of the WP5 deliverable report and annexes from English to Spanish.

P2: Proposal of a new defintion on good practice in food reformulation. P6: Editing the report WP6

P11: The questionnaire was translated. CBHU sent letters, e mails, called food companies to ask them to fill the questionnaire. The Hungarian answers were translated. The final report was translated.

P1: Contribution to collecting data (questionnaires on follow up among F&D SMEs in Italy) and editing final report

P3: In order to conduct the survey invitation letter and questionnaire were sent to the industry partners. P9: We contacted prescribed number of SMEs regarding rganization of the follow-up of the food

reformulation among SMEs. We gathered prescribed numer of survey for Slovenia. P4: extensive contacting of SME in Germany P5: IBA translated the WP6 questionnaire in national language and sent it to 400 SMEs at least twice.

we succeeded in obtaining 68 questionnaires (from 76) completed by Romanian SMEs on food reformulation implementation translated Romania Final Survey translated the WP6 final Report into national language

P12: Translation of the open answers to the questionnaire, translation of the report, upcoming press release of the report.

52

P14: Elaboration of a strategy for the construction of a representative mailing list of SMEs to be addressed. Elaboration of the mailing list. Translation of the questionnaires to Spanish, writing of the letter of invitation, distribution of the questionnaires and letter of invitation to the mailing list. In total, Spain collected 77 fully valid surveys, the highest number per country. Translation to English of the specific narrative answers and sending them to BOKU. Translation of the WP6 deliverable report and annexes from English to Spanish.

P6: Discussions on results of the survey WP7

P11: CBHU asked companies to fill and evaluate the cost questionnaire. This questionnaire was also translated into Hungarian. The answerswere sent to WP leader.

P1: Coordination of the activity as WP leader Definition of the methodology Elaboration of a cost model for estimation of costs of reformulation for SMEs Collection of data (questionnaires on cost analysis among F&D SMEs in Italy) and editing final report

P3: Gathering information through cost reformulation model questionnaire and validation. P9: We collect 8 feedback from the companies regarding sucessfull food products reformulation and also

regarding the correspondance between the model forecast and the real case results. P4: extensive contacting of industries but failure in convincing them to provide data that allows refinement

of the model P5: *IBA Report on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the major reformulations identified.

translated the questionnaire and sent it to SMEs which applied the food reformulation the most relevant questionnaires (9) completed by SMEs were sent to WP7 Leader, together with their comments

P12: Introducing report in the upcoming press release 08/2014. P14: Translation of the WP7 questionnaire to Spanish. Distribution of the WP7 questionnaire to all enterprises that answered the WP6 questionnaire.

6 reformulation examples obtained for the validation of WP7 tool, translated to English and sent to Tecnogranda., translated to English and sent to Tecnogranda.

P6: Discussions on proposed methodology Testing the model with SMEs

WP8

P11: CBHU sent letters to stakeholders to visit the home page of the Salux project and summarised some legislation and requirements in Hungarian language.

P1: Upload of documents on the Clearing House P9: We did asked texts translations for European Clearing House for Agri-food SMEs and Consumers and

upload 20 different documents. P4: Upload of important international information after translation into German (repeated) P5: IBA contributed with different materials at the development of the Clearing House: documents,

national and international studies, projects and their results, regulations on food safety and nutrition, presentations, articles

P15: Clearing house management P12: Uploading texts and documents to Clearing House. Inviting stakeholders to the SALUX Clearing

House via email 06/2014. P14: 46 documents related to food reformulation and food reformulation initiatives in Spain uploaded.

Information about the Clearing House sent to Spanish stakeholders.

P6: Collecting and posting material for the Clearing House.

53

List deliverables and/or milestones reached in this reporting period (if relevant)

P11: Advertisement and article in a HUngarian Scientific journal. Hungarian report. Translation of WP 4 report Hungarian report. Translation of WP5 report Hungarian answers. Translation of WP6 report Cost effectivenes analysis made by Hungarian companies. Information sending to Hungarian stakeholders.

P1: Organization of 3 project meetings (Paris, Budapest and Torino) Publication of 1 article on a web magazine (about 3,000 readers) and in the relative newsletter (sent every 2 weeks to about 5,000 users) 1 video streaming about the presentation of the SALUX project in a workshop in Italy 4 newsletters and 2 e-magazines (Italian translation) Publication of 1 press release about SALUX on a National newspaper in Italy (in press) D4. Report on follow-up (Italian translation) D6. Report about the Good Practices identified and analysed (Italian translation) D7. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the major reformulations identified (in English) + cost model + short reformulation guide (for SMEs)

P3: •The analysis of the local contexts •Identification and exchange of best practices and experiences in the field of food reformulation all over the EU • The organization of a follow-up of the food reformulation among SMEs • A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the major reformulations identified in response to SMEs needs • The establishment of a European Clearing House on food reformulation for agri-food SMEs and consumers

P9: 1. a. Collection and analysis available data and information about the food reformulation, rules and consumers awareness programmes to compare the different situations of the participating countries. b. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) about the food reformulation was performed. 2. Exploitation of the identified good practices and experiences in the promotion of the food reformulation among SMEs. 3. Arising the knowledge and understanding of the relationship between diet and health among consumers 4. Establishment of a EU Clearing House for agri-food SMEs and Consumers

P4: n.a.(all data included in the final WP reports) P8: Establishment of stakeholders list.

Realization of E-newsletters and E-magazine. Dissemination of Salux's activities

P12: Publishing WP5 and WP6 reports in Finnish. Final evaluation report upcoming. P14: SALUX presented in 4 seminars/workshops/meetings; 1 press release; 1 media insert and 1 TV

program. List od Spanish stakeholders relevant to foof reformulation. 2 examples of good practices selected 77 answers from SMEs to WP6 enquiry collected 6 food reformulation examples for the validation of WP7 tool obtained. 46 documents uploaded into WP8 Clearing House.

List any problems/deviations from the project work plan, or delayed progress towards reaching forthcoming milestones and/or deliverables. State corrective actions being taken to address problems.

P11: It was verydifficult to get answers from the food processing companies in connection with Food reformulation. That caused delay in the project and there was not enough time to discuss the got

54

results and make more dissemination. P1: - Low response rate and delay regarding WP5 (Follow up). Action: extension of the duration of WP5 to

month 20 - Difficulty in the development of the cost model (WP7). Action: deadline of WP7 extended to the end of the project (M35) to validate the model - Delay in delivering the foreseen scientific publications, that will be ready at end (or immediately after) of the project

P3: - Absence of adequate data to demonstrate how product reformulation affects food composition at a population level as well as dietary intakes and health; - Data from cost-effective analysis related with industrial production of reformulated foods are not sufficient; - Lack of information for reformulated foods connected with the technologies for processing, textural characteristics, sensory quality and shelf-life.

P9: We did some delays, but we reached oll milestones and deliverables. P4: Problems after the 2nd German partner has withdrawn paertnership in the Salux consortium with

extensive workload. Budget not sufficient to fulful all tasks. Financial overtime costs due to this issue not solved

P14: The main problem we had to face was the difficulty in getting SMEs involved so that they access the on line questionnaire on food reformulation (WP6). The corrective action we used was the re-evaluation of the overall strategy for the selection of targets to be addressed. We intensified the contacts with technological centers and with quality and innovation managers in SMEs through phone talks.

P2: Different understanding of good practice in food reformulation. After the meeting in Paris on 23-24 April 2013 the draft of the report was forwarded to the partners and was renewed once. It had the influence on submission of the final report on time.

55

Appendix 3: Open answers from the project partners to the partners satisfaction

and involvement questionnaire – first reporting period

If answer to questions was NO (less than 3), respondents were asked to tell why:

Q1:

Delay in WP5 and wP6 because of legal issues with Germany company "Salus" Q2:

Confusion with each WP regarding what was required. There seemed to be overlap between each WP.

Q3:

Some delayd answer to questions concerning the project

What are your proposals and suggestions about the best project implementation?

- It is important, in my oppinion, for the partners to receive more complete explanations and information from the coordinator team about different activities of the project.

- I think the project is going OK. - More active presentation of the project goals and results obtained related to the work packages;

Presentations of the obtained results related to the work packages especially directed towards national governments and stakeholders.

- Discussion between partners is not easy due to insufficient funding for these types of projects. It would be useful to travel to discuss what is required with one of the WP leaders but this is strictly not allowed because of costs. The costing is very restrictive. Deadlines are quite tight and should take into account public holidays periods such as easter and christmas.

- More exchanges with partners - Better information about the partners´ status and experience within the progress/results - Keep the planned deadlines

Give more time to answer - To stimulate the SMEs for active participation in project, I suggest to prepare certificate that SME was

involved in research cofunded by EAHC.

56

Appendix 4: Open answers from the project partners to the partners satisfaction

and involvement questionnaire – second reporting period

If answer to questions was NO (less than 3), respondents were asked to tell why:

Q1:

Sometimes the deadline was too short because the delay of the project Deadlines were very tight and the tasks weren't always clear. There was little scope for discussion before tasks were to be undertaken.

Q2:

The tasks were designed by individual WP leaders and did not always take into account the local context and differences in interpretation of instructions.

Q3: Financial situation due to extrawork after withdrawal of the 2nd German partner still unsolved Dario did the best he could, but there wasn't enough coordinated action from all partners in the planning of work packages. More face-to-face meetings would have been needed at the start of the project, as it is hard to have telephone discussions with strangers.

Q4: More time should have been allowed to address concerns raised by the partners at the project meetings.

What are your proposals and suggestions about the best project implementation?

- The project participant should make effort in their own country to make the food reformulation more popular and to use all possibility to explain why the less salt sugar and fat content is a good aim in the food processing

- The project was implemented in a good way. - For my opinion project implementation was very good, perhaps more cooperation with other

complementary EU projects. - less bureaucracy, more time for real work; more trust and less mistrust from EU - The project results have to be strongly disseminated between food companies for encouraging

implementation of food reformulation. We will promote the results of SALUX project within Food for Life Platform network.

- Overall, the main suggestion on how project implementation could have been improved is to circulate draft agenda and proposed work package methodologies early. More time should have been allowed for discussion of plans and results at meetings. This would have allowed methodologies and reports to be revised taking the expertise of the whole consortium rather than the individual WP leader.

- Better involvement of the Project Coordinator in work of SALUX project.

57

Appendix 5: CV of the independent external experts

Anders Andrén, professor emeritus in food science at the Swedish University of

Agricultural Sciences

Andrén is an expert in the area dairy science and especially milk proteins, the milk-clotting

reaction and involved enzymes and the cheese curd formation. He has almost 60

international peer-reviewed publications and the same number of conference reports

covering the influence of genetic milk protein variants (milk genomics) on the technological

properties (heat sensitivity, gelling time, curd firmness, cheese yield, casein retention,

syneresis) of cheese and fermented milk products, composition and properties of udder

quarter milk influenced by mastitis, effects of organic milk production on raw milk quality

and detailed studies on the affinity between the milk-clotting enzyme chymosin and

individual as well as micellar caseins. Andrén was active in an expert group on milk-

clotting enzymes in International Dairy Federation between 1983 and 2012 (chairman

1985-1998), where several international analytical standard methods (ISO-methods) were

produced. Seven post-graduate students have got their exams under the supervision of

Andrén, who still supervise two PhD-students.

Andrén was course director and responsible for the food science curriculum at the

University during the 1990’s and head of the Department of Food Science between 2000

and 2009 (60 employees and a yearly turnover of about € 5 million). He has had

international cooperation regarding both research and teaching, where Japan, New

Zealand, the Netherlands, Austria, Germany and both the Nordic as well as the Baltic

countries could be mentioned.

58

Professor Dolores O’Riordan

Qualifications: B.Sc.Dy, Ph.D. (Food Chemistry)

Research interests:Physico-chemical properties and functions of food ingredients; food

rheology and structure; sensory properties of foods. Relating macro and micro

components of food to the physical properties, health benefits and nutrient availability of

foods.

Dolores O’Riordan had 6 years international industrial research and development

experience in the area of food ingredients. As an employee of Kerry Ingredients, Plc. she

developed and promoted the sale of innovative milk ingredients for the Irish, UK, mainland

Europe, North and South American markets (1989-1995).

• She joined the Food Science team at UCD in 1995. Since then she has secured

~ €12million from competitively won grants to conduct research in the area of

food ingredients/health inducing food ingredients. There was an industrial

contribution to the majority of the research grants reflecting the value of

research to the food industry and the commercial potential of the output. She

established a critical mass and an internationally recognised research team in

the area of health inducing foods as evidenced by: invitations to chair and give

presentations at international conferences; external evaluator of grant proposals;

membership of Advisory Bodies and the development of international

collaborations with leading institutes in the discipline of Food Science. Her

research has led to a number of collaborations with Irish, North American, and

European Universities. A very important aspect of her work is collaboration with

the food Industry. She interacts regularly with national food companies and the

major global Food and Drink Players.

• She has published over 100 peer reviewed publications. She has filed and

licensed patents

• She manages an active research team comprising 14 researchers. Her

expertise in the areas of physical and chemical analysis of foods, food

formulation technology, processing technologies and sensory analysis under

pins her research.

• Her current research focuses on the extraction of bioactive ingredients from

foods and establishing their efficacy when subjected to food processing

conditions and real food environments.

• She has considerable expertise in the area of ingredient interac

microencapsulation, and formulation of low fat, low salt and high fibre foods.


Her current research focuses on the extraction of bioactive ingredients from


conditions and real food environments.

She has considerable expertise in the area of ingredient interac


59


Her current research focuses on the extraction of bioactive ingredients from


She has considerable expertise in the area of ingredient interactions,


60

Dr. Matthijs Dekker

is Associate Professor of Food Technology at Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

He obtained his PhD in Food Engineering from this university in 1990, when he joined

Unilever Research Laboratory in The Netherlands in Food and Bioprocess Engineering

research for five years. He returned to Wageningen University in 1995 to the Food Quality

& Design Group in the department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences. His research

interest is mainly on the effect of process and product design on health aspects of foods,

food packaging and consumer oriented product design with a special interests in

mathematical modelling in Food Science. He has over 80 peer-reviewed publications and

sat on many international grant review boards. He was Chairman of EU-COST action 926:

“Impact of new technologies on the health benefits and safety of bioactive plant

compounds”. He is currently Workpackage leader of the EU-FP7 project DREAM:

Development of REAlistic Models for food (WP2 on plant foods). He is member of the

Health Council Advisory Committee on health logo’s, member of the Advisory Board for

the evaluation of novel foods and member of the Scientific Commission of the Choices®

Logo.

61

Professor. Bent Egberg Mikkelsen

Brief bio: PhD in Organisational Sociology from Roskilde University, Professor. Bent

Egberg Mikkelsen holds a M.Sc. of Food Science from the Royal Agricultural University,

Copenhagen and a PhD in Social Science, from Roskilde University. He is the author of a

large number of publications on public health nutrition and sustainable public food

systems. Bent is principal investigator on several research projects and work include

several assignments on nutrition at schools and hospitals for the Council of Europe, food

and nutrition at work for the Nordic Council of Ministers, healthy eating at school for the

European WHO regional office and the EU platform for Health, Diet and Physical activity.

He is a Professor of Nutrition and Public Food Systems at the MENU research group at

Aalborg University. Chair of EU expert committee for the school fruit scheme (SFS).

Member of advisory boards of ProMeal and VeggieEat projects. Member of scientific panel

in the Sapere Taste Education network and the EU FoodLinks project. He is the Member

of the Management committee COST action IS1210 and the vicepresident in the Food &

Nutrition section of EUPHA

62

Professor Vasso Oreopoulou

Vasso Oreopoulou has a PhD degree in Chemical Engineering, and is a professor in the

Laboratory of Food Chemistry and Technology, School of Chemical Engineering, National

Technical University of Athens. She has an over 25-years’ experience in teaching and

laboratory training of undergraduate students and has also supervised several diploma

and PhD theses.

Her research fields cover lipid oxidation kinetics and application of natural antioxidants as

functional food components; low-fat, low-calories foods (application of fat- and sugar

replacers and dietary fibers); utilization of agro-industrial by products. She has published

textbooks (in greek) about food engineering for undergraduate students, 5 chapters in

international scientific books, and several (70) research articles in international scientific

journals. She participates in European and national research and training projects and

concerted actions, and in projects with food industry on know-how and product

development.

63

Ing. Marco Mangiantini

During his working experience, he has developed a specific competence in the field of

technology innovation promotion, with a particular attention to SMEs needs, supporting

them in the technology partnership setting up on a international level, and supporting them

in the access to the European/national and Regional financing schemes.

He has been coordinator of a large number of European projects, most of them carried out

on Institutional level acting as intra-muros expert for Public Organisations active in my

region. Furthermore, he has been also managing partnerships on European level (mainly

RTD FP and CIP, but also Alpine Space and Alcotra) collaborating with several important

European Organisations (e.g. Steinbeis Stiftung in Germany, Swerea IVF in Sweden,

Oseo in France, Acciò in Spain, …).

He spent most of his activities dealing with the EC RTD Framework Programme (since the

3rd FP), supporting and assisting SMEs in the participation, and organising and

implementing activities and services aimed to facilitate the access to the European funds

for Research and Development.

Since he mainly cooperate with Bodies having as target the valorisation, at home and

abroad, of the local economy and productive sectors, he has matured a wide experience in

the relationship with Italian companies and with local Bodies (as Regional Government,

Chamber of commerce system, Employers' associations, Science Parks, Innovation Poles,

RTD Systems, ...).

In his Region (Piemonte), he has specific relationships with the most important ICT Bodies

(Torino Wireless Foundation, Istituto Mario Boella and CSP).

64

Appendix 6: External evaluation – General evaluation board

Date: _____________________________

Evaluator: (name

surname)_______________________________________________________________

Object: (Document, Deliverable, skype

conference…)___________________________________________

1. Effectiveness (e.g. number and extent of key stakeholders involved such as SMEs, NGOs, Public Health Administrations [PHA], etc.);

Comments (free text, please insert reference in the document if possible):

_______________________________________________________________________

Score: Not well at all 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely well

2. Relevance (e.g. adaptation of SALUX recommendations to all EU Members States): Comments (free text, please insert reference in the document if possible):

_______________________________________________________________________


3. Impact (e.g. extension of the project network; added value in the European context measurable for i.e. through the n. of Member States participating in SALUX activities):


_______________________________________________________________________


4. Sustainability (possibility of the SALUX network to be maintained and continues to function through stakeholders, particularly PHAs):


_______________________________________________________________________


65

5. Transferability of the project results to other environments & contexts and

particularly to Eastern: Comments (free text, please insert reference in the document if possible):

_______________________________________________________________________


6. Quality of activities and results (in comparison with the current state of the art and socio-economic context of the project):


_______________________________________________________________________


7. Neighboring Countries (e.g. interest shown & engagement of different cities, countries and agri-food business in general):


_______________________________________________________________________


Signature:

________________________

66

Appendix 7: External evaluation – Skype conference evaluation board

Date: _____________________________

Evaluator: (name surname)_____________________________________________ __

Object: (Document, Deliverable, skype conference…)__Skype interview with__

1. Effectiveness (e.g. number and extent of key stakeholders involved such as SMEs, NGOs, Public Health Administrations [PHA], etc.);

Your task in the project is in relation with stakeholders? (evaluation, contact and

involvement)?

If yes, the method and instruments you used are efficient?

Are you satisfied in term of quantity and quality of answers?

In the future of the project, you task will be in relation with stakeholders?


_______________________________________________________________________


2. Relevance (e.g. adaptation of SALUX recommendations to all EU Members States): Are project activities relevant in term of adaptation to all member States?

If yes, why?

If no, Why? have you some suggest to improve this topic?


_______________________________________________________________________


67

3. Impact (e.g. extension of the project network; added value in the European context measurable for i.e. through the n. of Member States participating in SALUX activities):

Are you involved in the extension of the project network?

If yes, are you satisfied about in term of quantity and quality of actions and results?

If no, why? have you some suggest to improve this topic?


_______________________________________________________________________


4. Sustainability (possibility of the SALUX network to be maintained and continues to function through stakeholders, particularly PHAs):

In this moment, do you think that SALUX network could be maintained and continued at

the end of the project?

If yes, in which way?

If no, why? have you some suggest to improve this topic?


_______________________________________________________________________


5. Transferability of the project results to other environments & contexts and

particularly to Eastern: Are you involved in actions to transfer results to other environment& contest?

You will be involved in the future?

Do you think that SALUX results could be easily transferred?

Why?


_______________________________________________________________________


68

6. Quality of activities and results (in comparison with the current state of the art and socio-economic context of the project):

Try to evaluate quality of activities and results you’re involved in comparison with the state

of the art and socio-economic context of your country or in Europe


_______________________________________________________________________


7. Neighboring Countries (e.g. interest shown & engagement of different cities, countries and agri-food business in general):

Are you involved in activities with neighboring countries? In some situations could you

show objective and results of SALUX project? If yes, can you summarize the feedback

(opinions, interest, suggestions…)


_______________________________________________________________________


Signature:

________________________

69

Appendix 8: External evaluation – tables for evaluation data collection

External evaluation

Output and outcome parameters: data collection

Partner: xxx

N.B.: fill this form with figures relating to your country

Obj WP WP Title Del Data required Figure

2 5

Report about the

Good Practices D6

Number of food reformulated among the SMEs located in

the participating areas (at least 150 SMEs)

3 6 Report on follow-up D4

Number of contacted organizations/ experts (at least 50 in

total)

Collaboration with the SMEs and NGOs dealing with the

project issues (at least 100 in total)

5 7

Cost effectiveness

analysis D7

Number of organizations/experts/SMEs adopting the

developed model

6 8 Dissemination D5

Mailing list and number of invitations to join the platform

(at least 1000 contacts in total)

Date:

Name surname:

Signature:

70

External evaluation

Processes, output and outcome parameters: data collection

Partner:

SVFS

N.B.: relating to this board, fill the form with figures for the whole project

Obj WP WP Title Deliverable Data required Figure

1 4 Analysis of the local

context D2

Number of good practices (at least 2 for

each participating country)

identified/target -

Number of food reformulated among the

SMEs located in the participating areas (at

least 150 SMEs)

Date:

Name

surname:

Signature:

_____________________________________________________

External evaluation

Processes, output and outcome parameters: data collection

Partner:

BOKU

N.B.: relating to WP6, fill the form with figures for the whole project

Figure

Obj WP WP Title Deliverable Data required

3 6

Report on

follow-up D4

Number of delivered questionnaires (at least

1000 in total)

Number of filled in questionnaires (at least 1000

in total)

Date:

Name

surname:

Signature:

71

External evaluation

Output and outcome parameters: data collection

Partner: AGROHALL (ISES)

N.B.: relating to this board, fill the form with figures for the whole project

Obj WP WP Title Deliverable Data required Figure

1 2 Dissemination -

Number of SMEs participating in the SALUX

Forum

Involved SMEs to fill-in an electronic satisfaction

form on the project website (at least 1000 for

the whole project).

Date:

Name surname:

Signature:

72

Appendix 9: External evaluation – Evaluation Deliverables Scoreboard

D7 – Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the major reformulations

WP Leader Evaluation board

Legend:

− please fill the column if the indicators and topics are concerned with the content of the D7

documents; otherwise, sign n.a., as not applicable

− fill free to add also text comments in the columns

− column “reference in D7 documents”: please insert the page numbers and/or the chapter numbers in

which topics are in relation with the specific evaluation indicators

− column “Your evaluation”: please insert a number from 1 to 5 (1: not well at all; 5: extremely well)

Process Indicators Reference in D7 documents Your evaluation

Partners adoption of the methodology to identify and analyse the major reformulations

Output Indicators Reference in D7 documents Your evaluation

Second seminar in France to present the methodology of the CEA

Presentation of the methodology in the Third seminar in Hungary

Outcomes Indicators Reference in D7 documents Your evaluation

The CEA will be useful to

implement/ transfer the results

of effective previous food

reformulations activities to SMEs

involved in the project (analysis

of technical and economic

aspects)

73

Evaluation topic Reference in D7 documents Your evaluation

Effectiveness (e.g. number and

extent of key stakeholders

involved such as SMEs, NGOs,

Public Health Administrations

[PHA], etc.)

Relevance (e.g. adaptation of

SALUX recommendations to all

EU Members States)

Impact (e.g. extension of the

project network; added value in

the European context measurable

for i.e. through the n. of Member

States participating in SALUX

activities)

Sustainability (possibility of the

SALUX network to be maintained

and continues to function

through stakeholders, particularly

PHAs)

Transferability of the project

results to other environments &

contexts and particularly to

Eastern

Quality of activities and results

(in comparison with the current

state of the art and socio-

economic context of the project)

Neighboring Countries (e.g.

interest shown & engagement of

different cities, countries and

agri-food business in general)

Date: ______________

Editor: (name surname) ____________________

SALUS Final Evaluation Report PB 141008 MTT · WP7 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the major...

Documents

Transcript of SALUS Final Evaluation Report PB 141008 MTT · WP7 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the major...