How do policies promote the use of forgotten crops?

ESSRG recruited a Delphi expert panel to unlock the potential of neglected and forgotten crops and shape EU policies to promote their use. Under the auspices of the RADIANT project, we launched the first round of the policy Delphi, and participants assessed 19 policy interventions and mapped their impact and likelihood of adoption. We received 63 responses between May 6 and June 28, 2024.

What is an underutilised crop?

A neglected but valuable species, landrace, variety, or cultivar that has limited current use in a given geographic, social, and economic context and that holds great promise to diversify agricultural systems, create resilient agroecosystems, diversify diets, and develop economically viable dynamic value chains (for feed, food, and non-food uses) —adapted from FAO.

• Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea)
• Foxtail millet (Setaria italica)
• Lentil (Lens culinaris)
• Winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonoblu)
• Barley landraces (Hordeum vulgare)
• Faba bean (Vicia faba)
• Bean landraces (Phaseolus vulgaris)
• Forages (Alfafa/Clover)
• White lupin (Lupinus albus)
• Wheat landraces (Triticum monococcum)
• Maize landraces (Zea mays)
• Tomato landraces (Solanum lycopersicum)
• Pea (Pisum sativum)
• Leafy greens (Several species)
• Traditional fruit trees (Cherry, Apple, Pear,
• Fig, Carob, Tree, Plum)
• Bermuda Grass

A policy tool to prioritise interventions

Based on the responses, we created four categories:

1. Top priority interventions: policies with a high probability of adoption and impact. These policies can be considered the most transformative ones (the low-hanging fruits) to improve the use of underutilised crops within the value chain.
2. Low-priority interventions: complicated and ineffective policies with a low likelihood of adoption and low impact. These policies are unlikely to be adopted and would also not have a significant effect.
3. Undecided interventions: Some policy interventions got mixed results. About the same percentage of respondents considered them high-impact with a high probability of adoption as those seen as low-impact with a low likelihood of adoption.
4. Tricky but effective interventions: one policy intervention had a low likelihood of adoption and a high impact. This could be the highest policy priority, but its implementation is unlikely or too difficult.

Conclusions

• Differences can be observed among different underutilised crops (legumes, cereals, traditional fruit trees, leafy greens, other horticultural crops, and any crop) based on respondents' years of experience and level of expertise.

• In the breeding area, respondents found access to breeding materials adapted to local conditions to have the most significant impact. Following this came more lenient seed laws that allowed farmers to save and exchange seeds more freely and then participatory, in-situ breeding.
• Regarding production, crop-specific incentives were considered the highest in their impact and likelihood of adoption. Farmers' awareness-raising efforts and implementation of a new monitoring system within the Common Agriculture Policy, which received low marks for impact and likelihood of adoption, came next.
• Among policies related to processing, increasing education and access to traditional technologies and low-tech solutions and encouraging technological innovations were considered the most impactful, with moderately high scores. Responses confirmed that technological innovation is needed to support the use of underutilised crops while encouraging the establishment of high-tech companies that have received the lowest ranks regarding the likelihood of adoption and impact.
• In terms of trade, strengthening the role of short food value chains was considered the most impactful measure among all the proposed ones within the Delphi survey, and its likelihood for adoption is also among the highest. More strict trade agreements and changes in food safety and hygiene rules received lower ranks regarding the probability of adoption and impact.
• As for consumption, the statement indicating the importance of strengthening the link between underutilised crops and cultural identity/local heritage got the highest score regarding the likelihood of adoption and impact. Moreover, of all 19 statements, this statement scored the highest for the probability of adoption. Specific labelling is expected to have the lowest impact and adoption likelihood of the three consumption-related policy interventions presented in the study.
• Of the four general statements, promoting value-chain collaborations to support the breeding, production, processing, and consumption of underutilised crops got the highest scores on the likelihood of adoption and impact. The statement about strengthening the voice of the currently weakest actors of the food value chain got a lower score on the possibility of adoption. Still, regarding its impact, this is one of the highest-scoring statements. Considering the likelihood of adoption, the statement emphasising the role of nutritional value also scored high.

Panel composition

Regarding expertise, 21 experts selected legume grains, 14 traditional fruit trees, 6 underutilised leafy greens, 13 underutilised cereals, and 7 underutilised horticultural crops best suited to their expertise. 17 respondents did not select a specific crop.

Based on the answers to the demographic questions, there is a slight male majority among the respondents (53.4% men, 46.65% women). Age ranges from 24 to 76 years, averaging 49,5 years. 13,5% of respondents are under 40 years old, 14,6% are between 40-49 years of age, 15,6% are between 50-59, and 15,6% are above 60. We received responses from 23 countries, 3 of which are non-European and 3 European but non-EU countries. Most experts are researchers (78%), but seed suppliers/crop breeders, farmers, agronomists/extension service providers, and advocacy group members are also represented in the sample. The majority of respondents have more than 15 years of professional experience (62%); in addition, experts with 1-5 years of experience (10,3%), 5-10 years of experience (12,1%) and 11-15 years of experience (12,1%) are also included in the sample. Experts working in an international environment make 75,9% of the sample, while 8,6% and 13,8% work on local or national projects, respectively.

We will soon launch the?second round of this Delphi survey. Again, we look forward to your valuable contribution to shaping EU policies on underutilised crops! If you have any questions or need more clarification, please do not hesitate to contact Orsolya Lazanyi ([email protected]).