| Insect-IMP · CA22140 | |||
| Stakeholder Analysis & Engagement Plan | |||
| Improved Knowledge Transfer for Sustainable Insect Breeding · COST Action CA22140. Prepared for the Year 3 stakeholder engagement push, the September 2026 stakeholder meeting, the Year 4 position paper, and the Post-Action Sustainability Plan. | |||
| What this file contains | |||
| Tab: How to read this | This explanatory note: scope, framework, scoring conventions, MoU anchoring. | You are here | |
| Tab: Register | Master inventory of external stakeholders. Each row: category, example entities, primary interest, what the Action needs from them, geography, linked WGs, linked deliverables, plus MoU-cited and D-Critical flags. Spine of all downstream analytical tabs. | WHO matters. | |
| Tab: D-Critical Stakeholders | Subset of the Register, with deliverable-by-deliverable reasoning, MoU section anchor, and a recommended first action per stakeholder. | WHERE TO START. | |
| Analytical tabs (built) | Stakeholder Groups Analysis; WG Matrix; Salience (Mitchell, Agle & Wood); Power-Interest; Influence-Impact; Engagement (IAP2); SWOT; Combined Priority (six configurable instruments, auto-tiering); Top 10 Targets; Radar Top 10; Radar (categories); Comms Plan; Risk Linkage; PASP Map; Round Robin; Key Individuals; Dashboard. | HOW, IN WHAT ORDER, and SO WHAT. | |
| Framework | |||
| Approach | Quadruple-helix grouping: academia, industry, policy/regulatory and civil society, adapted to the Action's two constituencies. | ||
| The Action's two constituencies | The MoU treats farmed insects and honeybees as equally in scope and explicitly draws knowledge from aquaculture and large-livestock breeding as adjacent fields. The Register is organised to keep all four communities visible. | ||
| Scope | External stakeholders only. Internal COST governance bodies and the Action's own members are deliberately excluded to concentrate on the audience whose adoption turns Insect-IMP outputs into impact. | ||
| MoU-cited classification | Each Register row is classified: 'Yes' = the MoU names the specific entity or organisation; 'Implied' = the MoU references the type of stakeholder without naming a specific entity; 'Inferred' = analytical addition not in the MoU but useful for the engagement plan. Colour-coded for scannability. | ||
| D-Critical classification | A stakeholder is flagged D-Critical when their engagement is necessary either to produce a specific MoU deliverable (input) or for it to land its intended impact (uptake). The D-Critical Stakeholders tab spells out the linkage and a recommended first action per entity. | ||
| Linked Deliverable IDs | Internal IDs assigned to the deliverables listed in MoU §4.1.2: D1.1, D1.2 (WG1); D2.1 (WG2); D3.1, D3.2 (WG3); D4.1, D4.2 (WG4); D5.1 (WG5); D6.1, D6.2 (WG6). WG7 and WG8 outputs are tagged 'WG7-outputs' / 'WG8-outputs' since the MoU describes their activities without enumerating discrete deliverables. | ||
| Scoring note | Scores in the analytical tabs (still to be built) will be starting estimates for calibration with the Core Group, not measured data. | ||
| Colour legend (Register) | |||
| MoU-cited = Yes | Explicitly named in the MoU | ||
| MoU-cited = Implied | Stakeholder type referenced in the MoU without naming | ||
| MoU-cited = Inferred | Analytical addition; not in the MoU | ||
| D-Critical = Yes | Necessary for production or uptake of at least one MoU deliverable | ||
| HOW THE WORKBOOK IS WIRED - LIVE FORMULAS | |||
| Source of truth | The single cell where a number is actually typed. Every other place that number appears is a live reference to it, so the same score can never differ between two tabs. | ||
| Amber cells = inputs | The only cells you type into. Power, Legitimacy and Urgency on Salience; Interest on Power-Interest; Influence and Impact on Influence-Impact; current and target on Engagement; the four SWOT ratings and weights on SWOT; likelihood and impact on Risk Linkage; the weights and thresholds on Combined Priority. | ||
| Grey cells = pulled | Values referenced from another tab, for example Power on Power-Interest reads ='Salience'!D7. Do not type over them. | ||
| Everything else = computed | Quadrants, classes, gaps, normalised scores, the Overall Score, Tier, Sensitivity, Effort-Value, both radars and the whole Dashboard are formulas. | ||
| Change one score, see it everywhere | Editing a Power rating on Salience updates the salience class, the Power-Interest quadrant, the normalised columns, the Overall Score, the Tier, the Top 10 ranking, both radars and the Dashboard counts. | ||
| Re-weighting | The six weights on Combined Priority are free to edit; the Overall Score divides by their sum, so they need not total exactly 100. The tier thresholds, the borderline band and the high-effort threshold are equally editable. | ||
| SCORING CONVENTIONS - WHAT EACH SCALE MEANS | |||
| Power, Legitimacy, Urgency | 1 to 5 expert judgement; an attribute counts as present at 3 or above. Normalised as (x - 1) / 4 x 100. | ||
| Interest | 1 to 5 expert judgement, high at 3 or above. Normalised as (x - 1) / 4 x 100. | ||
| Influence | 0 to 100 direct expert judgement, not derived from a formula. Guide: 90 and above sets or gates EU-level rules, standards or market access; 75 to 89 has pan-European convening power; 60 to 74 carries significant national or sub-sectoral weight; 40 to 59 is recognised but confined to a niche; below 40 is marginal to the field. | ||
| Impact | 1 to 5, where 5 means at least one MoU deliverable cannot be produced or taken up without them. Normalised as (x - 1) / 4 x 100. | ||
| Engagement gap | Target minus current on the IAP2 ladder, so 0 to 4. Normalised as gap / 4 x 100, giving 25, 50, 75 or 100. This lens is inverted: a long spoke is work outstanding, not a strength. A large gap nonetheless raises priority, because it marks unrealised potential. | ||
| SWOT | Four ratings of 1 to 5 combined by weight into a 0 to 1 score, expressed elsewhere as score x 100. | ||
| D-Critical | Binary. 100 when the stakeholder is necessary to produce or land at least one MoU deliverable, otherwise 0. | ||
| Risk index | Likelihood times impact, each 1 to 3, so 1 to 9. A high index is bad. | ||
| Status of all scores | Every input is an analytical starting estimate derived from the MoU (COST 050/23) and public sources, prepared for calibration with the Stakeholder & Impact Task Force. None of it is measured data. | ||
| DELIVERABLE CODES - WHAT EACH ONE IS IN THE MoU | |||
| The MoU (COST 050/23) Technical Annex 4.1.2 lists ten written deliverables descriptively and does not number them. The codes below are a reading convention used throughout this analysis: one code per MoU deliverable, numbered by lead Working Group. WG7 (Dissemination) and WG8 (Inclusion and Representation) are given no written deliverables in the MoU, so their contributions appear as WG7-outputs and WG8-outputs. | |||
| Code | Lead WG | Deliverable as worded in MoU 4.1.2 | |
| D1.1 | WG1 | Recommendations / white paper for genetic diversity management in farmed insects | |
| D1.2 | WG1 | Review paper on population structure and domestication effects in farmed insects | |
| D2.1 | WG2 | Written report and video material from Training School on Mating Behaviour | |
| D3.1 | WG3 | Report on modelling environmental effects in insect breeding | |
| D3.2 | WG3 | Review paper on interplay of genetics, environment, and community | |
| D4.1 | WG4 | Report on traits for selection in farmed insect and their economic value | |
| D4.2 | WG4 | Workshop materials on developing breeding objectives in insect breeding programmes | |
| D5.1 | WG5 | Recommendations and best-practice for phenotyping in insect breeding programs | |
| D6.1 | WG6 | Technical paper on estimation of breeding values in different insect species | |
| D6.2 | WG6 | Training School materials on genetic evaluation in insect breeding | |
| ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS USED - SOURCES & REFERENCES | |||
| Instrument / tab | What it measures | Source | |
| From Mapping to Impact (umbrella framework) | The GSS methodology that selects, sequences and integrates every instrument below: which lenses to apply, in what order, and how their outputs convert into an engagement plan and a sustainability pathway. | GSS framework 'From Mapping to Impact: A Strategic Stakeholder Framework' (Zacharis, Greek Scientists Society). | |
| Quadruple-Helix grouping (Register) | Groups stakeholders as academia, industry, policy/regulatory and civil society, so that no constituency is structurally invisible. | Carayannis, E.G. & Campbell, D.F.J. (2009), 'Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix', International Journal of Technology Management 46(3/4), 201-234. | |
| Salience — Power, Legitimacy, Urgency | Classifies stakeholders by which of the three attributes they hold, yielding eight classes from Definitive to Latent. The class, not the sum, drives strategy. | Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. & Wood, D.J. (1997), 'Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience', Academy of Management Review 22(4), 853-886. | |
| Power-Interest grid | A 2x2 of power against interest giving four strategies: Manage Closely, Keep Satisfied, Keep Informed, Monitor. | Mendelow, A. (1981), 'Environmental Scanning: The Impact of the Stakeholder Concept', ICIS Proceedings; popularised in Johnson, Scholes & Whittington, Exploring Strategy. | |
| Influence-Impact grid | Field influence set against the Action's dependence on the stakeholder, separating Critical Players from High-Dependence stakeholders. | Standard project-management stakeholder analysis; see PMI, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 6th ed. (2017), section 13. | |
| Engagement — IAP2 Spectrum | Places each stakeholder on the ladder Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate, Empower, current against target, with the gap to be closed. | International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation (2018 revision), www.iap2.org. | |
| SWOT — per stakeholder | Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of each stakeholder relative to the Action, weighted into a single comparable 0-1 score. | Originating in the Stanford Research Institute's long-range planning work of the 1960s (Humphrey); see Learned, Christensen, Andrews & Guth (1965), Business Policy: Text and Cases. | |
| Communication planning | Per-group key message, channel, frequency, owner and KPI, each linked to a deliverable. | European Commission, Horizon Europe Programme Guide, Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation; and COST, Communication Guidelines for Actions. | |
| Risk Linkage | The Action's own MoU risk register mapped to the stakeholders that cause or mitigate each risk, scored as likelihood multiplied by impact. | Insect-IMP MoU (COST 050/23), Technical Annex section 4.1.3. The likelihood-consequence matrix technique follows IEC 31010:2019, Risk management, Risk assessment techniques. | |
| PASP — Post-Action Sustainability Project | Sustainability pillars and their anchor stakeholders, mapping how the Action's outputs survive beyond its four-year term. | PASP is a Greek Scientists Society initiative developed by Theo Zacharis for COST Actions approaching the end of Year 4; see the GSS framework 'From MoU to Legacy'. COST Association, Annotated Rules for COST Actions, is cited only for the four-year Action lifecycle that PASP addresses. | |
| Round Robin engagement sequencing | A round robin is a structured turn-taking format in which every participant receives a dedicated turn in a fixed rotation rather than the loudest voice dominating. Applied here, each stakeholder constituency gets its own scheduled round in a planned sequence tied to the milestone calendar, instead of ad-hoc outreach. | Adapted from the round-robin meeting format (practitioner source: https://www.meetjamie.ai/blog/round-robin-meeting). Sequencing logic from the GSS framework 'From Mapping to Impact'. | |
| Radar profiling | Multi-attribute visual comparison of stakeholders and of stakeholder categories across several lenses at once, exposing profile shape rather than rank alone. | Radar (star) charts are generally attributed to Georg von Mayr (1877). The computing application known as Kiviat figures is Kolence, K.W. & Kiviat, P.J. (1973), 'Software unit profiles & Kiviat figures', ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review 2(3), 2-12. | |
| COPYRIGHT & LICENCE | |||
| Author and rights | © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). All rights reserved. Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. | ||
| The published analysis | The interactive HTML version of this analysis and the accompanying report are made available to the Insect-IMP Action and the public under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, consistent with COST and Open Science requirements. Under CC BY 4.0 anyone may share and adapt them, including commercially, provided credit is given to the Greek Scientists Society (GSS) and Theo Zacharis, a link to the licence is included, and any changes made are indicated. | ||
| The methodology | The analytical frameworks 'From Mapping to Impact: A Strategic Stakeholder Framework' and 'From MoU to Legacy' are GSS-authored methodologies. Reuse of the underlying methodology to produce analyses for other Actions or clients requires written permission from the author. | ||
| Suggested citation | Zacharis, T. (2026). Insect-IMP (COST Action CA22140) Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement Plan. Greek Scientists Society. Available at https://gss.cost-action.eu/InsectIMP_CA22140_Stakeholder_Analysis.html Licensed under CC BY 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | ||
| REGISTER · Master inventory of Insect-IMP (CA22140) external stakeholders | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Built on the MoU (COST 050/23, 12 May 2023). Categories reflect the Action's food/feed + honeybee constituencies. MoU-cited and D-Critical columns are colour-coded — see 'How to read this'. | ||||||||||
| ID | Stakeholder / Group | Category | Example entities / members | MoU-cited | D-Critical | Linked WG(s) | Linked Deliverable(s) | Geography | Primary interest in Insect-IMP | What Insect-IMP needs from them |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | DG Health & Food Safety; Novel Food Unit | Implied | Yes | WG4·WG7 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | EU | Safe insect-derived food & feed; novel-food authorisations | Regulatory uptake of breeding-quality evidence; route to inform novel-food framing |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | DG Agriculture; zootechnical legislation (Reg. 2016/1012) | Implied | Yes | WG1·WG4·WG6·WG7 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | EU | Sustainable livestock breeding; alignment of insect breeding with EU zootechnical framework | Policy alignment for breeding-programme recognition; legitimacy for Action recommendations |
| 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | Policy & regulatory | Horizon Europe; agri-food, bioeconomy units | Implied | No | All WGs | WG7-outputs (PASP) | EU | Follow-on research funding; long-term EU research capacity | Successor-funding framing for Post-Action Sustainability |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | EFSA NDA panel (novel foods); FEEDAP panel (feed additives) | Implied | Yes | WG4·WG5·WG7 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), WG7-outputs | EU | Risk assessment of insects as food & feed; safety of substrates | Recognition of Action breeding-quality evidence in scientific opinions |
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | Member-State authorities under Reg. 2016/1012; national feed/food agencies | Implied | Yes | WG1·WG4·WG6·WG7 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | Per country | Implementation of breeding programme recognition and feed/food authorisations | National implementation pathway; legitimacy across Member States |
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | National competent authorities under the Convention on Biological Diversity | Yes | Yes | WG1 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review) | EU+global | Access & benefit-sharing for genetic resources | Compliance pathway for WG1 work — explicit MoU requirement (§4.1.1) |
| 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | EAAP annual meetings; Insect Commission; Genetics Commission | Yes | Yes | All WGs | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | EU+global | Animal-science home for insect genetics; primary workshop venue for the Action | Workshop slots; dissemination venue; cross-pollination with livestock genetics |
| 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | Academia & research networks | Quadrennial international congress; Permanent Scientific Committee | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG3·WG6 | D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | Global | Visibility of insect genetics within the global livestock-genetics community | Dedicated sessions on insect breeding; international recognition for WG6 outputs |
| 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | International honeybee research association based in Switzerland | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG2·WG3·WG5 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | Global | Coordination of honeybee research worldwide; BEEBOOK methods | Honeybee community reach; methodological alignment; participant recruitment |
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | Roslin Institute — partner of BetaBugs | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG5·WG6 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | UK | Applied quantitative genetics for insect breeding via BetaBugs collaboration | Method validation; cross-fertilisation with livestock-breeding methodology |
| 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | Cambridge research groups — partner of Better Origin | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG5 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | UK | Research collaboration via Better Origin on insect-farming systems | Applied insight on production-system performance |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | Aquaculture breeding programmes & research groups | Yes | Yes | WG3·WG5·WG6 | D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | EU+global | Established methods for batch phenotypes & genetic evaluation under shared environments | Knowledge transfer — explicitly identified by the MoU as a primary adjacent field (§1.2.1) |
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | Dairy, beef, pig, poultry breeding research community | Yes | Yes | WG3·WG6 | D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | EU+global | Established statistical methods for breeding value estimation, social effects, GxE | Knowledge transfer to insect breeding (§1.2.1) |
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | University & institute groups across EU Member States and ITC | Implied | Yes | All WGs | All deliverables | EU | Active research labs driving Action outputs | Data contribution; method validation; WG leadership; deliverable authorship |
| 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | Academia & research networks | Image-processing, sensor, computer-vision and ML groups | Yes | Yes | WG5 | D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | EU+global | Automated, non-invasive phenotyping methods (Baur et al. 2022; Majewski 2022) | Transferable phenotyping methods for insect breeding (§1.1.2) |
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | EU non-profit sector federation; ~85 members (producers + academia + adjacent industry) | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG7·WG8 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), WG7-outputs | EU+global | Sector representation; regulatory dialogue; market growth | Industry channel; reach to producers; co-organising workshops; policy interface |
| 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | Industry — insect producers | Large-scale BSF producer; partnership with Hendrix Genetics (2018) | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG5 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | EU+global | Industrial BSF breeding programme; commercial-scale production | Reference industrial breeding programme; data contribution; benchmark |
| 18 | Innovafeed (France) | Industry — insect producers | Large-scale BSF producer; cooperation with FlyGenetics and SYSAAF | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG5 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | EU+global | Industrial BSF production; breeding-services partnership | Industrial use cases; data contribution; adoption signal |
| 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | Industry — insect producers | Yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) producer; automated phenotyping in industry | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG5 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | EU+global | Mealworm species coverage; industrial automated phenotyping (§1.1.2) | Phenotyping case study; mealworm-specific trait & system data |
| 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | BSF genetics SME; collaboration with Roslin Institute | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG5·WG6 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | UK | Commercial BSF genetics; automated phenotyping in industry (§1.1.2) | Industrial BSF phenotyping & EBV case; SME-relevant tooling |
| 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | On-farm insect tech SME; collaboration with University of Cambridge | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG5 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | UK | Distributed/on-farm insect production | Production-system data; field demonstration |
| 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | Industry — insect producers | Producers of Tenebrio molitor, Acheta domesticus, Hermetia illucens | Implied | No | WG4·WG5 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | EU | Species & geography coverage; sector demand signal | Adoption pathway; broader use cases |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | Animal-breeding specialist running insect breeding via Protix partnership (Facchini et al., 2022) | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG4·WG6 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | Global | Industrial-scale insect breeding programme; commercial line distribution | Reference programme; benchmarking; method translation from livestock to insects |
| 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | BSF breeding services; cooperation with Innovafeed and SYSAAF | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG4·WG6 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | CH/EU | Commercial BSF genetics services | Engagement; benchmarking; SME-aligned methods |
| 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | Industry — breeding & genetics services | Breeding-services organisation extending to insects via Innovafeed & FlyGenetics | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG6 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | FR/EU | Established selection-programme governance & record-keeping | Programme-design discipline transferable to insect breeding |
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | II service providers; isolated mating stations across EU | Implied | Yes | WG2 | D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) | EU | Controlled-mating infrastructure for honeybees | WG2 method consolidation; cross-species transfer (§4.1.1) |
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | Honeybee breeding associations operating in most European countries (§1.1.1) | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG2·WG6 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | Per country | Stock improvement; population conservation; pan-European participation in BeeBreed | Field-recorded data; breeder buy-in; ITC participation |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | Pan-European genetic-evaluation database for 11 honeybee subspecies (in place since 1990s) | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG6 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) | EU | Existing breeding-value evaluation infrastructure for honeybees | Reference system for WG6; data-pipeline integration; honeybee benchmark for genetic evaluation models |
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | Commercial-scale beekeepers across Europe | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG4·WG5 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | EU | Practical performance testing under commercial conditions | MoU notes BeeBreed protocols are 'not suitable for commercial beekeepers' (§1.1.1) — engagement needed to make outputs operational |
| 30 | National beekeeper federations | Industry — honeybee sector | Member-State beekeeper associations | Inferred | No | WG7·WG8 | WG7-outputs, WG8-outputs | Per country | Practitioner outreach; sector representation | Member dissemination channel |
| 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | Industry — downstream value chain | Feed producers including insect components or live insects (§1.1.1) | Yes | Yes | WG4 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials) | EU+global | Quality-assured insect protein as feed ingredient | Market-needs signal for breeding objectives; trait priorities |
| 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | Code EFABAR responsible-breeding code | Yes | Yes | WG1·WG4·WG6·WG7 | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | EU | Responsible-breeding governance | Code EFABAR alignment for Action recommendations (§3.2.2); industry-norms anchor |
| 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | Standards & governance | Global recording-standards body across species | Inferred | No | WG5·WG6 | D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | Global | Recording standards for production & genetic traits | Long-term alignment route for insect/honeybee recording guidance |
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | Established globally for insect-farming research, R&D and industry perspectives (§2.2.2) | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG7 | D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | DE/global | Cross-sector insect-farming venue | Industry workshop venue; dissemination of WG4 outputs |
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | Networks & dissemination | Wide-array conference on insects in food and feed, processing, circular economy | Yes | Yes | WG4·WG7 | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | Global | Global venue spanning food/feed, processing, sustainability, conservation | Long-term dissemination & policy-facing visibility |
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | Journal of Insects as Food and Feed; Genetics Selection Evolution; Apidologie; Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics; Journal of Apicultural Research | Implied | Yes | All WGs | All written deliverables | Global | Open-access dissemination of harmonised breeding knowledge (§3.2.2) | Special issues; review & technical papers |
| 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | Capacity & cross-cutting | Companies & innovators providing technology for large-scale farming of insects (§2.2.2) | Yes | No | WG4·WG5 | D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | EU+global | Tooling that interacts with breeding programmes | Integration with phenotyping & breeding-objective work |
| 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | Adjacent projects referenced in MoU §2.1.1 spanning insect rearing, mating control, smart-beehive phenotyping, conservation | Yes | Yes | All WGs | D1.2 (Population-structure review), D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | EU | Existing research outputs in adjacent insect & honeybee domains | Inputs to review & methods papers; recruitment of expertise; PASP partners |
| 39 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | Researchers, farmers & beekeepers in Inclusiveness Target Countries; eastern Europe & Balkan bee-breeding and sericulture traditions (§2.2.1) | Yes | Yes | WG7·WG8 | WG8-outputs | EU (ITC) | Access to expertise, networks & upskilling; reintroducing ITC knowledge to the wider European sphere | Geographic balance; ITC knowledge & participation; legitimacy of the inclusiveness mandate |
| 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | Capacity & cross-cutting | Students & ECIs across insect breeding, entomology, aquaculture & livestock genetics; ~half the Network of Proposers (§3.2.1) | Implied | Yes | All WGs | D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School), WG8-outputs | EU+global | Career growth; STSMs, Training Schools & workshops; leadership experience | The next generation of insect breeders; capacity that sustains the field beyond the Action |
| D-CRITICAL STAKEHOLDERS · entities essential to specific Insect-IMP deliverables | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Each row is a stakeholder flagged D-Critical in the Register. For each: the MoU deliverable(s) they are critical to, the reason why, the MoU anchor, and a recommended first action. | ||||||
| ID | Stakeholder | Category | Linked Deliverable(s) | Why deliverable-critical | MoU anchor | Recommended first action |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE | Policy & regulatory | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | Insect food/feed depends on novel-food authorisations and feed-safety frameworks. Adoption of Action breeding-quality evidence by DG SANTE turns WG4 outputs into operational regulatory inputs. | §2.2.2 (policymakers involved in the regulation of insects for feed and food); §3.2.2 (engagement with EU-level legislators) | Scoping note from WG7 to Novel Food Unit framing Action outputs as breeding-quality evidence; align with IPIFF regulatory dialogue. |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI | Policy & regulatory | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | Animal-breeding regulation (Reg. 2016/1012) is the natural EU policy interface for the Action's genetic-diversity, breeding-objective and BV-estimation outputs. | §1.2.2.2 (CBO 10 — communicate with policy makers); §3.2.2 | WG7 briefing aligning D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report) and D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) with the zootechnical framework; engage via EFFAB. |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), WG7-outputs | EFSA opinions on novel food and feed additives draw on breeding & production evidence. Recognition of Action outputs in EFSA panels gives breeding work direct regulatory traction. | §2.2.2; §1.2.2.2 (CBO 10) | Map EFSA NDA & FEEDAP opinion cycles; route D4.1 (Traits and economic value report) and D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) evidence to relevant rapporteurs. |
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | National authorities are the implementation layer for breeding-programme recognition and feed/food authorisations. Without them, EU-level adoption does not translate into national practice. | §1.2.2.2 (CBO 10); §3.2.2 | ITC-prioritised national briefings via the Action's national delegates and WG7. |
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review) | WG1 must adhere strictly to the Nagoya Protocol when working on genetic resources of farmed insects. This is a structural compliance requirement, not optional. | §4.1.1 (WG1 description — explicit Nagoya Protocol compliance commitment) | WG1 to verify ABS pathway for any new genetic-resource access ahead of D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations) finalisation. |
| 7 | EAAP — Study Commissions on Insects and on Genetics | Academia & research networks | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | The MoU identifies EAAP as the first target for Action workshops; EAAP sessions are the primary planned dissemination venue for outputs across WGs 1-6. | §1.2.1 (EAAP as first workshop target); §2.1.1; §2.2.2 | Co-organise Action sessions at EAAP annual meetings tied to the deliverable timeline; align with EAAP Insect Genetics WG. |
| 8 | WCGALP | Academia & research networks | D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | WCGALP is the premier global animal-breeding congress; its 2022 dual session on Bees and Other Insects demonstrated cross-species willingness for collaboration, which D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) directly addresses. | §2.1.1 (WCGALP 2022 dual sessions); §2.2.1 (Permanent Scientific Committee) | Propose dedicated insect-genetics sessions for the next WCGALP cycle, anchored on D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper). |
| 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | COLOSS is the international honeybee research association and the most comprehensive distribution channel for honeybee-side outputs. | §1.1.1 (only existing structured honeybee genetics investigation); §2.1.1 | Liaise via COLOSS for honeybee inputs to D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations) and D1.2 (Population-structure review); align Training School material (D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School)) with BEEBOOK methods. |
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | Named MoU collaborator with BetaBugs; carries applied quant-genetics expertise into BSF breeding work and gives Action outputs an industrial-research anchor. | §1.1.1 (Roslin–BetaBugs collaboration) | Direct outreach for WG1 and WG5 contributions; benchmark D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) against Roslin BSF work. |
| 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | Named MoU collaborator with Better Origin; relevant to WG4 breeding-objective work and WG5 phenotyping case studies. | §1.1.1 (Cambridge–Better Origin collaboration) | Specific lab-level outreach via the Better Origin partnership. |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | Identified by the MoU as the primary knowledge-transfer source: aquaculture has successfully handled batch phenotypes within genetic evaluation systems since the late 1980s, and the parallels with insect rearing are explicit. | §1.1.2; §1.2.1 (aquaculture as adjacent field); §4.1.1 (WG5) | Recruit aquaculture quant-genetics experts to WG3, WG5 and WG6 (workshops, STSMs). |
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | Knowledge transfer from livestock breeding (social effects, GxE, statistical models) is explicit MoU positioning. D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) builds directly on this transfer. | §1.1.2 (Bijma 2020 social effects; David & Ricard 2019); §1.2.1 | Engage livestock quant-genetics community via EAAP Study Commission on Genetics. |
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | All deliverables | These groups carry the substantive research load behind every written deliverable; engagement is critical not for uptake but for production. | §2.2.1 (Network of Proposers) | WG-level coordination of deliverable authorship; STSM matchmaking. |
| 15 | PLF / phenotyping & ML researchers | Academia & research networks | D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | Automated, non-invasive phenotyping is the structural advance D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) must deliver; PLF and ML researchers are the source of transferable methods. | §1.1.2 (Baur et al. 2022; Majewski 2022) | Targeted invitation to WG5 workshops; STSM links to ML groups working on insect imagery. |
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), WG7-outputs | MoU identifies IPIFF as the principal industry-reach channel — its membership covers most of Europe's insect producers and adjacent industry. WG4 and WG7 outputs land via IPIFF. | §2.2.2; §3.2.1 (collaboration with IPIFF expected to increase reach to industry partners); §3.2.2 | Establish co-coordinated dissemination & policy work with IPIFF Secretariat; target IPIFF General Assembly for workshop slot. |
| 17 | Protix | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | Named in the MoU via its Hendrix Genetics partnership as one of the few existing insect-breeding programmes. Reference programme for D4 and D5 work. | §1.1.1 (Protix–Hendrix Genetics partnership, Facchini et al. 2022) | Direct industry-partner outreach for breeding-objective and phenotyping case studies. |
| 18 | Innovafeed | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | MoU-named via cooperation with FlyGenetics and SYSAAF; one of the established industrial BSF actors. | §1.2.1 | Outreach via the FlyGenetics/SYSAAF cooperation channel. |
| 19 | Ÿnsect | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | MoU-named as the leading industrial example of automated yellow-mealworm phenotyping; D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) directly engages with this case. | §1.1.2 (Ÿnsect, yellow mealworm beetle, automated phenotyping in industry) | Targeted invitation to WG5 phenotyping workshop; case-study contribution to D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations). |
| 20 | BetaBugs | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | MoU-named industrial BSF actor with Roslin Institute collaboration; relevant to both phenotyping (D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations)) and BV estimation (D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper)) work. | §1.1.2; §1.1.1 (BetaBugs–Roslin collaboration) | Coordinate via Roslin link; offer benchmark participation for BSF EBV work. |
| 21 | Better Origin | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | MoU-named via Cambridge collaboration; relevant to WG4 trait/economics work in on-farm and distributed insect-farming settings. | §1.1.1 (Better Origin–Cambridge collaboration) | Engage on production-system trait data for D4.1 (Traits and economic value report). |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | MoU identifies the Hendrix–Protix partnership as the single most established insect-breeding programme in Europe. Reference benchmark for D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper). | §1.2.1; §3.1.1 (consultancy services analogy) | Senior-level engagement framing Action work as complementary to commercial programmes. |
| 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | MoU-named BSF genetics provider; participation in WG6 benchmarking validates D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper). | §1.2.1 | Co-design BSF EBV case study with FlyGenetics. |
| 25 | SYSAAF | Industry — breeding & genetics services | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | MoU-named technical centre with established selection-programme methodology; transfers programme-design discipline to insect breeding. | §1.2.1 | Engage SYSAAF as methodology anchor for D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials) workshop materials. |
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) | WG2 mating-behaviour work consolidates honeybee mating control as a transfer source for other insect species; these providers operate the relevant infrastructure. | §1.1.1; §4.1.1 (WG2 — geographical/temporal/biological isolation methods) | Workshop with II and mating-station providers ahead of D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) Training School. |
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | These associations are the operational backbone of honeybee breeding across Europe and the primary channel through which honeybee-side deliverables reach practice. | §1.1.1; §2.2.2 | Coordinated outreach with BeeBreed and ITC delegates; co-design dissemination of D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations). |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu | Industry — honeybee sector | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) | BeeBreed is the existing pan-European honeybee BV evaluation system; D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) and D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) must engage with its data infrastructure to be credible for honeybees. | §1.1.1 (BeeBreed centralised system since 1990s, 11 subspecies); §2.2.2 | Establish a working link with BeeBreed for D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) model comparison and D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) training material. |
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | The MoU explicitly notes BeeBreed performance-testing protocols are 'not suitable for commercial beekeepers' — engaging them is required to make D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations) and D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) operational at commercial scale. | §1.1.1 | Convene a commercial-beekeeper consultation in coordination with BeeBreed and national associations. |
| 31 | Feed manufacturers | Industry — downstream value chain | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials) | Feed producers' interest in insect components defines the economic value of selection traits; D4.1 (traits and economic value) depends on this market signal. | §1.1.1 (feed producers beginning to show interest) | Industry consultation on insect-protein quality criteria via IPIFF and the WG4 Industry Workshop. |
| 32 | EFFAB / Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | MoU explicitly commits to engaging EFFAB so that Action recommendations comply with Code EFABAR — this is the standards-governance anchor for the WG1 and WG4 outputs. | §3.2.2 (engaging with EFFAB to ensure compliance with Code EFABAR) | Formal liaison with EFFAB on D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations) and D4.x to align with Code EFABAR. |
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | MoU identifies Insecta as one of the established recurring venues for the Action's industry-facing workshops (CBO 7 & 8). | §2.2.2 | Propose an Insect-IMP industry-workshop slot at the next Insecta edition. |
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World | Networks & dissemination | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | MoU identifies the 5th Edition as a long-term target venue covering food/feed, processing, sustainability and conservation. | §2.2.2 | Submit Action symposium proposal; co-publish with IPIFF. |
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | All written deliverables | Open-access publication is the MoU's primary route for harmonised breeding knowledge; journals carry every WG's written output. | §3.2.2 | Map journal special-issue opportunities to deliverable timing; coordinate cross-WG submissions. |
| 37 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | D1.2 (Population-structure review), D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | Outputs of these adjacent projects (insect rearing & behaviour, mating control, smart-beehive phenotyping, conservation) feed the Action's review and methods deliverables. | §2.1.1 | Map ongoing adjacent-project deliverables to the Insect-IMP Gantt; align review-paper scoping. |
| 38 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | WG7-outputs, WG8-outputs | ITC representation is a structural Action commitment; their inclusion underpins WG8 outputs and the legitimacy of pan-European dissemination. | §2.2.1 | Coordinate with national delegates; ensure ITC speakers at each public Action event. |
| STAKEHOLDER x WORKING GROUP MATRIX | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | Which Working Groups each stakeholder connects to, as a sortable and filterable grid rather than a text string. | |||||||||||
| How to use it | A linked cell holds the value 1 but the number format hides the digit, so you see only a colour block. Sorting and filtering on a WG column still work normally, and the totals row counts the stakeholder load per Working Group. | |||||||||||
| Note | Stakeholders recorded in the Register as relevant to all Working Groups are marked across WG1 to WG8. | |||||||||||
| ID | Stakeholder | Category | Linked Deliverable(s) | WG1 | WG2 | WG3 | WG4 | WG5 | WG6 | WG7 | WG8 | # WGs |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | Policy & regulatory | WG7-outputs (PASP) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | Academia & research networks | D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | All deliverables | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | Academia & research networks | D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 18 | Innovafeed (France) | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | Industry — insect producers | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | Industry — breeding & genetics services | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D1.2 (Population-structure review), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
| 30 | National beekeeper federations | Industry — honeybee sector | WG7-outputs, WG8-outputs | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | Industry — downstream value chain | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | Standards & governance | D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | Networks & dissemination | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | All written deliverables | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | Capacity & cross-cutting | D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | D1.2 (Population-structure review), D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| 39 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | WG8-outputs | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | Capacity & cross-cutting | D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School), WG8-outputs | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Stakeholders per WG | 18 | 9 | 10 | 27 | 21 | 20 | 16 | 9 | ||||
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||||||||
| STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ANALYSIS | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | The register scored and tagged in one view: influence, deliverable-criticality, priority, salience class and where each stakeholder stands in Year 3 of 4. | ||||||||
| Source of truth | Nothing is typed here. Influence, D-Critical, salience class and priority are all pulled live from their home tabs, so this view cannot drift out of step. | ||||||||
| Priority | Derived from the Tier on Combined Priority: Tier 1 is High, Tier 2 Medium, Tier 3 Low. Re-weighting the index re-labels this column automatically. | ||||||||
| Read it as | The Year-3 note is the practical instruction: what to do about this stakeholder in the Action's final full year. | ||||||||
| ID | Stakeholder Group | Category | Linked WG(s) | Influence (0-100) | D-Critical | Priority (from Tier) | Salience class | MoU-cited | Year-3 Engagement Note |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | WG4·WG7 | 82 | Yes | High | Definitive | Implied | Open a WG7 scoping channel to the Novel Food Unit; frame D4.x as breeding-quality evidence ahead of the Sept meeting. |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | WG1·WG4·WG6·WG7 | 84 | Yes | High | Definitive | Implied | Position D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations)/D4.1 (Traits and economic value report)/D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) against Reg. 2016/1012; engage via EFFAB. Priority policy anchor for Year 4 position paper. |
| 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | Policy & regulatory | All WGs | 78 | No | Medium | Dominant | Implied | Frame the PASP successor-funding narrative (Horizon Europe) now; not an engagement priority for deliverables. |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | WG4·WG5·WG7 | 80 | Yes | High | Definitive | Implied | Map EFSA NDA & FEEDAP opinion cycles; identify rapporteurs for D4.1 (Traits and economic value report)/D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) evidence routing. |
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | WG1·WG4·WG6·WG7 | 74 | Yes | High | Dominant | Implied | ITC-prioritised national briefings via delegates; sequence after the stakeholder analysis lands. |
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | WG1 | 76 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Structural compliance — verify ABS pathway for any WG1 genetic-resource access before D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations) finalisation. |
| 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | All WGs | 88 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Primary workshop venue: lock an Insect-IMP session at the next EAAP annual meeting; align with Insect Genetics WG. |
| 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | Academia & research networks | WG1·WG3·WG6 | 74 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Propose dedicated insect-genetics sessions for the next WCGALP cycle, anchored on D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper). |
| 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | WG1·WG2·WG3·WG5 | 80 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Liaise for honeybee inputs to D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations)/D1.2 (Population-structure review); align D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) Training School material with BEEBOOK methods. |
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | WG1·WG5·WG6 | 78 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Direct outreach for WG1/WG5 contributions; benchmark D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) against Roslin BSF work. |
| 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | WG4·WG5 | 74 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Lab-level outreach via the Better Origin partnership for D4.1 (Traits and economic value report)/D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations). |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | WG3·WG5·WG6 | 82 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Recruit aquaculture quant-genetics experts to WG3/WG5/WG6 via workshops & STSMs — top knowledge-transfer target. |
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | WG3·WG6 | 78 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Engage livestock quant-genetics community via EAAP Study Commission on Genetics for D3.x/D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper). |
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | All WGs | 84 | Yes | High | Definitive | Implied | WG-level coordination of deliverable authorship; STSM matchmaking. Core production engine. |
| 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | Academia & research networks | WG5 | 68 | Yes | High | Dependent | Yes | Targeted invitations to WG5 workshops; STSM links to ML groups on insect imagery for D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations). |
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | WG4·WG7·WG8 | 86 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Establish co-coordinated dissemination & policy work with IPIFF Secretariat; target the General Assembly for a slot. |
| 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | Industry — insect producers | WG4·WG5 | 74 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Direct industry-partner outreach for breeding-objective & phenotyping case studies (D4/D5). |
| 18 | Innovafeed (France) | Industry — insect producers | WG4·WG5 | 74 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Outreach via the FlyGenetics/SYSAAF cooperation channel. |
| 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | Industry — insect producers | WG4·WG5 | 68 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Invite to WG5 phenotyping workshop; secure the mealworm automated-phenotyping case for D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations). |
| 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | WG4·WG5·WG6 | 66 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Coordinate via the Roslin link; offer benchmark participation for BSF EBV work (D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper)). |
| 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | WG4·WG5 | 62 | Yes | Medium | Definitive | Yes | Engage on production-system trait data for D4.1 (Traits and economic value report). |
| 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | Industry — insect producers | WG4·WG5 | 56 | No | Medium | Dependent | Implied | Broaden species/geography coverage; recruit via IPIFF — not deliverable-critical. |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | WG1·WG4·WG6 | 74 | Yes | High | Dominant | Yes | Senior-level engagement framing Action work as complementary to the Hendrix–Protix programme. |
| 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | WG1·WG4·WG6 | 62 | Yes | Medium | Dominant | Yes | Co-design a BSF EBV case study with FlyGenetics. |
| 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | Industry — breeding & genetics services | WG4·WG6 | 70 | Yes | High | Dominant | Yes | Engage SYSAAF as methodology anchor for D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials) workshop materials. |
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | WG2 | 54 | Yes | Medium | Dependent | Implied | Workshop with II and mating-station providers ahead of the D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) Training School. |
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | WG1·WG2·WG6 | 72 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Coordinated outreach with BeeBreed & ITC delegates; co-design dissemination of D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations). |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | WG1·WG6 | 80 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Establish a working link with BeeBreed for D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) model comparison and D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) training material. |
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | WG1·WG4·WG5 | 62 | Yes | High | Dependent | Yes | Convene a commercial-beekeeper consultation with BeeBreed & national associations — MoU flags protocol gap. |
| 30 | National beekeeper federations | Industry — honeybee sector | WG7·WG8 | 48 | No | Low | Discretionary | Inferred | Use as a practitioner dissemination channel; light-touch. |
| 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | Industry — downstream value chain | WG4 | 72 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Industry consultation on insect-protein quality criteria via IPIFF and the WG4 Industry Workshop. |
| 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | WG1·WG4·WG6·WG7 | 80 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Formal liaison on D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations) and D4.x to align with Code EFABAR — standards-governance anchor. |
| 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | Standards & governance | WG5·WG6 | 66 | No | Medium | Dominant | Inferred | Long-term recording-standards alignment; not a Year-3 priority. |
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | WG4·WG7 | 66 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Propose an Insect-IMP industry-workshop slot at the next Insecta edition. |
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | Networks & dissemination | WG4·WG7 | 68 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Submit an Action symposium proposal; co-publish with IPIFF. |
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | All WGs | 70 | Yes | High | Definitive | Implied | Map journal special-issue opportunities to deliverable timing; coordinate cross-WG submissions. |
| 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | Capacity & cross-cutting | WG4·WG5 | 58 | No | Low | Dominant | Yes | Engage on integration with phenotyping & breeding-objective work; secondary. |
| 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | All WGs | 68 | Yes | High | Definitive | Yes | Map adjacent-project deliverables to the Gantt; align review-paper scoping and recruit PASP partners. |
| 39 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | WG7·WG8 | 62 | Yes | High | Dependent | Yes | Coordinate with national delegates; ensure ITC speakers at each public Action event — WG8 backbone. |
| 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | Capacity & cross-cutting | All WGs | 60 | Yes | High | Dependent | Implied | Prioritise for STSMs, Training Schools and the March position-paper workshop — future sustainability. |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | |||||||||
| SALIENCE - MITCHELL, AGLE & WOOD (1997) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | Which of three attributes each stakeholder holds: Power (can they affect the Action?), Legitimacy (is their claim proper?) and Urgency (does it demand attention now?). The combination yields eight classes, from Definitive down to Latent. | |||||||
| Source of truth | The three amber columns are the only place Power, Legitimacy and Urgency are typed. Every other tab reads them from here, so the same score can never differ between tabs. | |||||||
| How it is scored | Each attribute is rated 1 to 5 by expert judgement and counts as present at 3 or above. Composite is their sum (3 to 15). The class, not the sum, drives strategy. | |||||||
| Read it as | Definitive stakeholders are engaged first. Dependent stakeholders have a legitimate, urgent claim but no power, so they need an ally. Dormant stakeholders hold power they are not currently using. | |||||||
| ID | Stakeholder | Category | Power ▸input | Legitimacy ▸input | Urgency ▸input | Composite (3-15) | Salience class | Rationale / lever |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | 5 | 4 | 3 | 12 | Definitive | Controls novel-food authorisation; slow but decisive on market access. |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | 5 | 4 | 3 | 12 | Definitive | Owns the EU zootechnical framework insect breeding must align with. |
| 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | Policy & regulatory | 5 | 4 | 2 | 11 | Dominant | Follow-on funding gatekeeper; low urgency now. |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 | Definitive | Scientific-opinion authority on insects as food & feed. |
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | 4 | 4 | 2 | 10 | Dominant | National implementation layer for recognition & authorisation. |
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | 4 | 5 | 4 | 13 | Definitive | Structural ABS compliance requirement for WG1 (Nagoya). |
| 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | 4 | 5 | 4 | 13 | Definitive | MoU's first workshop target; the Action's academic home. |
| 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | 3 | 11 | Definitive | Premier global livestock-genetics congress; recognition route. |
| 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | 4 | 12 | Definitive | International honeybee research hub; honeybee reach. |
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | 4 | 12 | Definitive | Named MoU collaborator (BetaBugs); applied quant-genetics anchor. |
| 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | 3 | 11 | Definitive | Named MoU collaborator (Better Origin); production insight. |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | 4 | 12 | Definitive | MoU's primary knowledge-transfer source (batch phenotypes). |
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | 3 | 11 | Definitive | Livestock methods (social effects, GxE) transfer into D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper). |
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | 4 | 12 | Definitive | Carry the substantive research load behind every deliverable. |
| 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | Academia & research networks | 2 | 4 | 3 | 9 | Dependent | Source of transferable automated phenotyping methods (D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations)). |
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | 4 | 5 | 4 | 13 | Definitive | Principal industry-reach channel; ~85 members; policy interface. |
| 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | Industry — insect producers | 4 | 3 | 3 | 10 | Definitive | Reference industrial BSF breeding programme (Hendrix partner). |
| 18 | Innovafeed (France) | Industry — insect producers | 4 | 3 | 3 | 10 | Definitive | Established industrial BSF actor (FlyGenetics/SYSAAF). |
| 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | Industry — insect producers | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 | Definitive | Leading industrial mealworm automated-phenotyping case. |
| 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 | Definitive | MoU-named BSF SME with Roslin link; D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) & D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) case. |
| 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 | Definitive | On-farm insect-tech SME (Cambridge partner). |
| 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | Industry — insect producers | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | Dependent | Species/geography coverage & sector demand signal. |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 4 | 3 | 2 | 9 | Dominant | Single most established insect-breeding programme in EU. |
| 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | Dominant | MoU-named BSF genetics provider; WG6 benchmark. |
| 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 4 | 4 | 2 | 10 | Dominant | Selection-programme methodology anchor for D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials). |
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | Dependent | Operates honeybee controlled-mating infrastructure (WG2). |
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 | Definitive | Operational backbone of honeybee breeding across Europe. |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 | Definitive | Existing pan-EU honeybee BV system; D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper)/D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) must engage. |
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | 2 | 4 | 3 | 9 | Dependent | MoU flags BeeBreed protocols unsuitable for them — must engage. |
| 30 | National beekeeper federations | Industry — honeybee sector | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | Discretionary | Practitioner dissemination channel; low salience. |
| 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | Industry — downstream value chain | 4 | 3 | 3 | 10 | Definitive | Defines economic value of selection traits (D4.1 (Traits and economic value report) market signal). |
| 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 | Definitive | Code EFABAR governance anchor — explicit MoU commitment. |
| 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | Standards & governance | 4 | 5 | 2 | 11 | Dominant | Recording-standards alignment; long-term, low urgency. |
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 | Definitive | Established industry-facing workshop venue (CBO 7 & 8). |
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | Networks & dissemination | 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 | Definitive | Long-term global dissemination & policy-facing venue. |
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 | Definitive | Primary open-access route for every WG's written output. |
| 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | Capacity & cross-cutting | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | Dominant | Tooling interacting with breeding programmes; secondary. |
| 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 | Definitive | Adjacent-project outputs feed review & methods deliverables. |
| 39 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | 2 | 4 | 4 | 10 | Dependent | Structural ITC-representation commitment; WG8 legitimacy. |
| 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | Capacity & cross-cutting | 2 | 4 | 4 | 10 | Dependent | Next-generation pipeline; STSMs & Training Schools. |
| SALIENCE CLASS LEGEND | ||||||||
| Definitive | Power + Legitimacy + Urgency. Top priority; manage closely and first. | |||||||
| Dominant | Power + Legitimacy. Keep satisfied. | |||||||
| Dangerous | Power + Urgency. Manage with care. | |||||||
| Dependent | Legitimacy + Urgency. Needs an ally with power. | |||||||
| Dormant | Power only. Monitor. | |||||||
| Discretionary | Legitimacy only. Goodwill. | |||||||
| Demanding | Urgency only. Low effort. | |||||||
| Latent | None. Minimal attention. | |||||||
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||||
| POWER-INTEREST GRID | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | The classic 2x2. Power is the ability to affect the Action's course; Interest is how much the stakeholder cares about its outcome. The pairing gives four standing strategies. | |||||
| Source of truth | Interest is typed here (amber). Power is pulled live from Salience (grey) and must not be typed over. | |||||
| How it is scored | Both are 1 to 5 and count as high at 3 or above. | |||||
| Read it as | Manage Closely is the working core. Keep Satisfied are powerful but currently disengaged, and are the ones most worth converting. Keep Informed are willing allies without leverage. | |||||
| ID | Stakeholder | Category | Power ▸from Salience | Interest ▸input | Quadrant | Recommended strategy |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | 5 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | 5 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | Policy & regulatory | 5 | 2 | Keep Satisfied | Meet needs; consult on key decisions. |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | 4 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | 4 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | 4 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | 4 | 5 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | Academia & research networks | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | 3 | 5 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | Academia & research networks | 2 | 4 | Keep Informed | Regular updates; leverage interest and goodwill. |
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | 4 | 5 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | Industry — insect producers | 4 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 18 | Innovafeed (France) | Industry — insect producers | 4 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | Industry — insect producers | 3 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | 3 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | Industry — insect producers | 2 | 4 | Keep Informed | Regular updates; leverage interest and goodwill. |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 4 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 3 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 4 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 2 | 3 | Keep Informed | Regular updates; leverage interest and goodwill. |
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | 4 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | 2 | 4 | Keep Informed | Regular updates; leverage interest and goodwill. |
| 30 | National beekeeper federations | Industry — honeybee sector | 2 | 3 | Keep Informed | Regular updates; leverage interest and goodwill. |
| 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | Industry — downstream value chain | 4 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | 4 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | Standards & governance | 4 | 2 | Keep Satisfied | Meet needs; consult on key decisions. |
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | Networks & dissemination | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | Capacity & cross-cutting | 3 | 3 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | 3 | 4 | Manage Closely | Engage fully; co-create; priority outreach. |
| 39 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | 2 | 4 | Keep Informed | Regular updates; leverage interest and goodwill. |
| 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | Capacity & cross-cutting | 2 | 4 | Keep Informed | Regular updates; leverage interest and goodwill. |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||
| INFLUENCE-IMPACT GRID | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | Influence is the stakeholder's sway over the wider field, independent of this Action. Impact is how much the Action's own success depends on them. The two are deliberately different questions. | |||||
| Source of truth | Both amber columns are typed here and are read by Combined Priority, the Groups Analysis and both radars. | |||||
| How Influence is scored | Influence is a direct expert judgement on a 0 to 100 scale. It is not derived from a formula. Guide: 90 and above sets or gates EU-level rules, standards or market access; 75 to 89 has pan-European convening power; 60 to 74 carries significant national or sub-sectoral weight; 40 to 59 is recognised but confined to a niche; below 40 is marginal to the field. | |||||
| How Impact is scored | Impact is 1 to 5, where 5 means at least one MoU deliverable cannot be produced or taken up without them. | |||||
| Read it as | Critical Players are primary partners. High-Dependence stakeholders carry less weight in the field but the Action leans on them, so they must be secured early. The two grey threshold cells are tunable. | |||||
| Influence >= | 70 | Impact >= | 4 | |||
| ID | Stakeholder | Category | Influence (0-100) ▸input | Impact (1-5) ▸input | Quadrant | Recommended strategy |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | 82 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | 84 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | Policy & regulatory | 78 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | 80 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | 74 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | 76 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | 88 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | Academia & research networks | 74 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | 80 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | 78 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | 74 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 82 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 78 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | 84 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | Academia & research networks | 68 | 5 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | 86 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | Industry — insect producers | 74 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 18 | Innovafeed (France) | Industry — insect producers | 74 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | Industry — insect producers | 68 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | 66 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | 62 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | Industry — insect producers | 56 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 74 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 62 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 70 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 54 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | 72 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | 80 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | 62 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 30 | National beekeeper federations | Industry — honeybee sector | 48 | 3 | Peripheral | Monitor lightly. |
| 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | Industry — downstream value chain | 72 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | 80 | 5 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | Standards & governance | 66 | 3 | Peripheral | Monitor lightly. |
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | 66 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | Networks & dissemination | 68 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | 70 | 4 | Critical Player | Engage as a primary partner; co-develop. |
| 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | Capacity & cross-cutting | 58 | 3 | Peripheral | Monitor lightly. |
| 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | 68 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 39 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | 62 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | Capacity & cross-cutting | 60 | 4 | High Dependence | Support and secure; the Action relies on them. |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||
| ENGAGEMENT SPECTRUM (IAP2) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | Where the relationship stands today against where it needs to be, on the IAP2 ladder: 1 Inform, 2 Consult, 3 Involve, 4 Collaborate, 5 Empower. | ||||||
| Source of truth | Current and target levels are typed here (amber). The gap, the labels and the closing action are formulas. | ||||||
| How the gap works | Gap = target minus current, so it runs 0 to 4. Normalised elsewhere as gap divided by 4, times 100: a gap of 1 is 25, of 2 is 50, of 3 is 75, of 4 is 100. | ||||||
| This lens is inverted | On every other instrument a high score is a good thing. Here a large gap is a distance still to be closed, not an asset. On the radar a long engagement-gap spoke marks work outstanding. | ||||||
| Why a gap raises priority | In the Combined Priority index a larger gap deliberately increases the score, because it marks unrealised potential: a powerful, legitimate stakeholder we are merely informing is exactly where effort pays off. | ||||||
| ID | Stakeholder | Current ▸input | Target ▸input | Gap | Current label | Target label | Action to close the gap |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | 3 | 5 | 2 | Involve | Empower | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 9 | COLOSS network | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 11 | University of Cambridge | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | 2 | 5 | 3 | Consult | Empower | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | 3 | 5 | 2 | Involve | Empower | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | 2 | 5 | 3 | Consult | Empower | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 18 | Innovafeed (France) | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 24 | FlyGenetics | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 30 | National beekeeper federations | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | 1 | 4 | 3 | Inform | Collaborate | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | 1 | 3 | 2 | Inform | Involve | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 39 | ITC research communities | 2 | 4 | 2 | Consult | Collaborate | Plan a concrete step up (workshop, role, co-authorship). |
| 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | 2 | 5 | 3 | Consult | Empower | Priority: dedicated outreach and a formal step up. |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | |||||||
| SWOT - PER STAKEHOLDER (RELATIVE TO INSECT-IMP) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | Each stakeholder seen from the Action's side: what they bring (Strength), what limits them (Weakness), what engaging them unlocks (Opportunity) and what it risks (Threat). | |||||||||||
| Source of truth | The four rating columns and the four weights are typed here. The score and the band are formulas. | |||||||||||
| How the score works | Score = (1.4 x S) - (1 x W) + (1.6 x O) - (1 x T), normalised to 0 to 1 across its theoretical range of -7 to +13. Opportunity carries the heaviest weight because engagement upside is the point of the exercise. | |||||||||||
| On the common scale | Elsewhere in the workbook the score is expressed as score x 100, so that it shares the 0 to 100 scale used by every other instrument. | |||||||||||
| Read it as | Strong ally at 0.78 and above; Favourable 0.70 to 0.77; Mixed 0.60 to 0.69; Difficult below 0.60. The notes are category archetypes and should be personalised per entity during Task Force calibration. | |||||||||||
| WEIGHTS (edit these) | ||||||||||||
| S weight | 1.4 | W weight | -1 | O weight | 1.6 | T weight | -1 | |||||
| ID | Stakeholder | Category | Strength (note) | S ▸ | Weakness (note) | W ▸ | Opportunity (note) | O ▸ | Threat (note) | T ▸ | SWOT score (0-1) | Band |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | Confer legitimacy and open regulatory and funding channels. | 4 | Slow-moving and hard to access; not technically engaged in breeding science. | 3 | Engagement embeds Insect-IMP evidence in EU novel-food and zootechnical policy. | 5 | If rules are set without Action input, its outputs may be sidelined. | 2 | 0.78 | Strong ally |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | Confer legitimacy and open regulatory and funding channels. | 4 | Slow-moving and hard to access; not technically engaged in breeding science. | 3 | Engagement embeds Insect-IMP evidence in EU novel-food and zootechnical policy. | 5 | If rules are set without Action input, its outputs may be sidelined. | 2 | 0.78 | Strong ally |
| 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | Policy & regulatory | Confer legitimacy and open regulatory and funding channels. | 4 | Slow-moving and hard to access; not technically engaged in breeding science. | 3 | Engagement embeds Insect-IMP evidence in EU novel-food and zootechnical policy. | 5 | If rules are set without Action input, its outputs may be sidelined. | 2 | 0.78 | Strong ally |
| 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | Confer legitimacy and open regulatory and funding channels. | 4 | Slow-moving and hard to access; not technically engaged in breeding science. | 3 | Engagement embeds Insect-IMP evidence in EU novel-food and zootechnical policy. | 5 | If rules are set without Action input, its outputs may be sidelined. | 2 | 0.78 | Strong ally |
| 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | Confer legitimacy and open regulatory and funding channels. | 4 | Slow-moving and hard to access; not technically engaged in breeding science. | 3 | Engagement embeds Insect-IMP evidence in EU novel-food and zootechnical policy. | 5 | If rules are set without Action input, its outputs may be sidelined. | 2 | 0.78 | Strong ally |
| 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | Confer legitimacy and open regulatory and funding channels. | 4 | Slow-moving and hard to access; not technically engaged in breeding science. | 3 | Engagement embeds Insect-IMP evidence in EU novel-food and zootechnical policy. | 5 | If rules are set without Action input, its outputs may be sidelined. | 2 | 0.78 | Strong ally |
| 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | Academia & research networks | Hold the methods and produce the deliverables; the Action's technical core. | 5 | Limited reach into industrial practice and decision channels. | 3 | Co-developed methods, publications and Training Schools build the knowledge base. | 4 | Fragmented incentives; knowledge may stay siloed by species. | 2 | 0.77 | Favourable |
| 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | Provide production-scale data, use cases and the adoption that proves impact. | 4 | Guard proprietary lines and data; trade-secrecy culture across the sector. | 3 | Adoption turns Action recommendations into industrial breeding practice. | 5 | Competitive fragmentation and reluctance to share can slow standard-setting. | 3 | 0.73 | Favourable |
| 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | Industry — insect producers | Provide production-scale data, use cases and the adoption that proves impact. | 4 | Guard proprietary lines and data; trade-secrecy culture across the sector. | 3 | Adoption turns Action recommendations into industrial breeding practice. | 5 | Competitive fragmentation and reluctance to share can slow standard-setting. | 3 | 0.73 | Favourable |
| 18 | Innovafeed (France) | Industry — insect producers | Provide production-scale data, use cases and the adoption that proves impact. | 4 | Guard proprietary lines and data; trade-secrecy culture across the sector. | 3 | Adoption turns Action recommendations into industrial breeding practice. | 5 | Competitive fragmentation and reluctance to share can slow standard-setting. | 3 | 0.73 | Favourable |
| 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | Industry — insect producers | Provide production-scale data, use cases and the adoption that proves impact. | 4 | Guard proprietary lines and data; trade-secrecy culture across the sector. | 3 | Adoption turns Action recommendations into industrial breeding practice. | 5 | Competitive fragmentation and reluctance to share can slow standard-setting. | 3 | 0.73 | Favourable |
| 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | Provide production-scale data, use cases and the adoption that proves impact. | 4 | Guard proprietary lines and data; trade-secrecy culture across the sector. | 3 | Adoption turns Action recommendations into industrial breeding practice. | 5 | Competitive fragmentation and reluctance to share can slow standard-setting. | 3 | 0.73 | Favourable |
| 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | Provide production-scale data, use cases and the adoption that proves impact. | 4 | Guard proprietary lines and data; trade-secrecy culture across the sector. | 3 | Adoption turns Action recommendations into industrial breeding practice. | 5 | Competitive fragmentation and reluctance to share can slow standard-setting. | 3 | 0.73 | Favourable |
| 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | Industry — insect producers | Provide production-scale data, use cases and the adoption that proves impact. | 4 | Guard proprietary lines and data; trade-secrecy culture across the sector. | 3 | Adoption turns Action recommendations into industrial breeding practice. | 5 | Competitive fragmentation and reluctance to share can slow standard-setting. | 3 | 0.73 | Favourable |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | Bring mature quantitative-genetics capability directly into the insect sector. | 4 | Commercial confidentiality limits what methods and data can be shared openly. | 3 | Neutral pre-competitive methods they can adopt without exposing proprietary lines. | 4 | May prefer closed in-house programmes over shared European standards. | 3 | 0.65 | Mixed |
| 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | Bring mature quantitative-genetics capability directly into the insect sector. | 4 | Commercial confidentiality limits what methods and data can be shared openly. | 3 | Neutral pre-competitive methods they can adopt without exposing proprietary lines. | 4 | May prefer closed in-house programmes over shared European standards. | 3 | 0.65 | Mixed |
| 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | Industry — breeding & genetics services | Bring mature quantitative-genetics capability directly into the insect sector. | 4 | Commercial confidentiality limits what methods and data can be shared openly. | 3 | Neutral pre-competitive methods they can adopt without exposing proprietary lines. | 4 | May prefer closed in-house programmes over shared European standards. | 3 | 0.65 | Mixed |
| 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | Bring mature quantitative-genetics capability directly into the insect sector. | 4 | Commercial confidentiality limits what methods and data can be shared openly. | 3 | Neutral pre-competitive methods they can adopt without exposing proprietary lines. | 4 | May prefer closed in-house programmes over shared European standards. | 3 | 0.65 | Mixed |
| 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | Century-old breeding tradition, structured associations and existing pedigree data. | 4 | Nationally fragmented; performance protocols unsuited to commercial-scale beekeeping. | 4 | Modernised genetic evaluation that finally serves commercial beekeepers. | 4 | Tradition-driven resistance to model-based selection and centralised recording. | 2 | 0.65 | Mixed |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | Century-old breeding tradition, structured associations and existing pedigree data. | 4 | Nationally fragmented; performance protocols unsuited to commercial-scale beekeeping. | 4 | Modernised genetic evaluation that finally serves commercial beekeepers. | 4 | Tradition-driven resistance to model-based selection and centralised recording. | 2 | 0.65 | Mixed |
| 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | Century-old breeding tradition, structured associations and existing pedigree data. | 4 | Nationally fragmented; performance protocols unsuited to commercial-scale beekeeping. | 4 | Modernised genetic evaluation that finally serves commercial beekeepers. | 4 | Tradition-driven resistance to model-based selection and centralised recording. | 2 | 0.65 | Mixed |
| 30 | National beekeeper federations | Industry — honeybee sector | Century-old breeding tradition, structured associations and existing pedigree data. | 4 | Nationally fragmented; performance protocols unsuited to commercial-scale beekeeping. | 4 | Modernised genetic evaluation that finally serves commercial beekeepers. | 4 | Tradition-driven resistance to model-based selection and centralised recording. | 2 | 0.65 | Mixed |
| 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | Industry — downstream value chain | Define the economic value of selection traits through their purchasing criteria. | 3 | Distant from breeding decisions; low technical engagement with genetics. | 3 | Their quality criteria can anchor breeding objectives in real market demand. | 4 | May source insect protein globally regardless of European breeding progress. | 2 | 0.63 | Mixed |
| 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | Provide the normative pathway that turns recommendations into accepted practice. | 4 | Slow consensus processes; the Action must align with them, not dictate. | 2 | Action outputs can extend Code EFABAR and recording standards to insects. | 5 | If standards form without Action input, its authority is lost. | 2 | 0.83 | Strong ally |
| 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | Standards & governance | Provide the normative pathway that turns recommendations into accepted practice. | 4 | Slow consensus processes; the Action must align with them, not dictate. | 2 | Action outputs can extend Code EFABAR and recording standards to insects. | 5 | If standards form without Action input, its authority is lost. | 2 | 0.83 | Strong ally |
| 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | Established audiences and venues that carry outputs to the right communities. | 4 | Reach without decision-making power; visibility is not the same as uptake. | 2 | Dedicated sessions and special issues multiply the Action's reach. | 4 | Message dilution across many competing venues and conferences. | 2 | 0.75 | Favourable |
| 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | Networks & dissemination | Established audiences and venues that carry outputs to the right communities. | 4 | Reach without decision-making power; visibility is not the same as uptake. | 2 | Dedicated sessions and special issues multiply the Action's reach. | 4 | Message dilution across many competing venues and conferences. | 2 | 0.75 | Favourable |
| 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | Established audiences and venues that carry outputs to the right communities. | 4 | Reach without decision-making power; visibility is not the same as uptake. | 2 | Dedicated sessions and special issues multiply the Action's reach. | 4 | Message dilution across many competing venues and conferences. | 2 | 0.75 | Favourable |
| 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | Capacity & cross-cutting | Carry the Action's inclusiveness mandate and its future workforce. | 3 | Limited individual influence; dependent on Action resources and invitations. | 3 | STSMs and Training Schools build the community that sustains the PASP. | 5 | Without funding continuity the pipeline disperses at the Action's end. | 2 | 0.71 | Favourable |
| 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | Carry the Action's inclusiveness mandate and its future workforce. | 3 | Limited individual influence; dependent on Action resources and invitations. | 3 | STSMs and Training Schools build the community that sustains the PASP. | 5 | Without funding continuity the pipeline disperses at the Action's end. | 2 | 0.71 | Favourable |
| 39 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | Carry the Action's inclusiveness mandate and its future workforce. | 3 | Limited individual influence; dependent on Action resources and invitations. | 3 | STSMs and Training Schools build the community that sustains the PASP. | 5 | Without funding continuity the pipeline disperses at the Action's end. | 2 | 0.71 | Favourable |
| 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | Capacity & cross-cutting | Carry the Action's inclusiveness mandate and its future workforce. | 3 | Limited individual influence; dependent on Action resources and invitations. | 3 | STSMs and Training Schools build the community that sustains the PASP. | 5 | Without funding continuity the pipeline disperses at the Action's end. | 2 | 0.71 | Favourable |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||||||||
| COMMUNICATION PLAN | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | The operational layer: for each stakeholder group, the message that lands, the channel that reaches them, who owns it and how success is measured. | |||||
| How to use it | Every line should map to a named person and a deliverable. A KPI without an owner is an aspiration, not a plan. | |||||
| Stakeholder group | Key message | Channel | Frequency | Owner | KPI | Linked deliverable(s) |
| EU policymakers (DG SANTE, DG AGRI, EFSA) | Insect-IMP delivers the breeding-quality evidence base your novel-food and zootechnical decisions currently lack. | Policy briefs; targeted meetings; position paper | Milestone-driven | WG7 + Stakeholder lead | ≥2 briefings; position-paper acknowledgement | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), WG7-outputs |
| National competent authorities | Recognised insect-breeding standards enable consistent national implementation. | National-delegate briefings | Twice/year | National delegates + WG7 | ≥5 national briefings (ITC-weighted) | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) |
| EAAP / WCGALP / academic networks | Insect breeding is now a first-class strand of animal genetics — join the sessions and co-author. | Conference sessions; joint workshops | Per congress cycle | WG leads | ≥1 dedicated session per venue/year | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D3.2 (Genetics-environment-community review), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) |
| Aquaculture & livestock breeders | Your batch-phenotype and genetic-evaluation methods transfer directly to insects — help us adapt them. | STSMs; joint workshops; co-publication | Rolling | WG3/WG5/WG6 leads | ≥3 STSMs; ≥2 co-authored papers | D3.1 (Environmental-effects report), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) |
| IPIFF & insect producers | Shared breeding standards de-risk your scale-up and unlock predictable genetic gain. | IPIFF Secretariat; industry workshops | Quarterly | Stakeholder lead + WG4 | IPIFF slot secured; ≥5 producers engaged | D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations) |
| Breeding & genetics services (Hendrix, SYSAAF, FlyGenetics) | Neutral, pre-competitive methods you can adopt without exposing proprietary lines. | Senior bilateral engagement | Milestone-driven | Chair + WG6 lead | ≥3 reference programmes benchmarked | D4.2 (Breeding-objectives workshop materials), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) |
| Honeybee sector (BeeBreed, associations, beekeepers) | Modern genetic evaluation that finally works for commercial beekeeping, not just research stations. | COLOSS; national associations; BeeBreed link | Twice/year | WG2/WG6 leads | BeeBreed data link; commercial-beekeeper consultation | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper), D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) |
| Standards & governance (EFFAB / Code EFABAR) | Our recommendations are built to comply with and extend Code EFABAR from day one. | Formal liaison | Milestone-driven | WG7 + Chair | Code EFABAR alignment confirmed | D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations), D4.1 (Traits and economic value report), WG7-outputs |
| Dissemination venues & journals | High-quality, open-access insect-breeding knowledge, ready for your audience. | Special issues; symposia; social media | Rolling | WG7 | ≥1 special issue; ≥6 papers | All written deliverables |
| ITC communities & ECIs | This is where the next generation of European insect-breeding leaders is built. | STSMs; Training Schools; targeted invitations | Rolling | WG8 lead | ≥50% ITC at public events; ECI leadership roles | WG8-outputs, D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School), D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||
| RISK LINKAGE - MoU SECTION 4.1.3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | The Action's own risk register from the MoU, mapped onto the stakeholders that either cause each risk or are needed to mitigate it. | |||||
| How the index works | Index = likelihood x impact, each rated 1 to 3, so the index runs from 1 to 9. A HIGH index is BAD: it marks the risks that most need active management. | |||||
| Bands | 1 to 2 low (green), 3 to 5 moderate (amber), 6 to 9 high (orange). Only the two rating columns are typed; the index is a formula. | |||||
| Method | Risk content is taken from the Insect-IMP MoU Technical Annex, section 4.1.3. The likelihood-consequence matrix technique follows IEC 31010:2019, Risk management, Risk assessment techniques. | |||||
| # | MoU risk | Stakeholders affected | Likelihood (1-3) ▸ | Impact (1-3) ▸ | Index (1-9) | Mitigation owner / action |
| 1 | Difficulty recruiting missing expertise or stakeholders | Leading research groups; aquaculture/livestock experts; 'missing' target species | 1 | 1 | 1 | Multi-platform representation; WG8 actively recruits adjacent partners. |
| 2 | Hesitation of industry members to share information | IPIFF; Protix; Innovafeed; Hendrix; SYSAAF; FlyGenetics; large in-house groups | 2 | 2 | 4 | NDAs and data anonymisation; neutral pre-competitive framing (Stakeholder lead + WG4). |
| 3 | Loss of Working Group leaders or crucial members | WG leads; core research groups | 1 | 3 | 3 | Roles doubled up; central repository for handover (Chair + Core Group). |
| 4 | Lack of protocol cohesion between target species | Honeybee associations vs BSF/mealworm producers; 'missing' species | 3 | 1 | 3 | WG8 supports under-represented species; actively consult representatives. |
| 5 | Lack of current research projects on Action topics | Adjacent EU-funded projects; feed manufacturers; producers | 2 | 3 | 6 | Secure industry support; back members in funding collaborations (Chair + WG7). |
| 6 | Lack of accessibility (political instability / pandemic) | ITC participants; national associations; international partners (ICIPE, CEIF) | 2 | 3 | 6 | Hybrid delivery; schedule & locate events for accessibility (all WGs). |
| 7 | Failure to engage stakeholders | All D-Critical groups, esp. policymakers & commercial beekeepers | 2 | 3 | 6 | Stakeholder analysis (this workbook) + Sept meeting; needs questionnaire; retention-focused dissemination. |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||
| POST-ACTION SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT (PASP) MAP | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| What PASP is | A Post-Action Sustainability Project is a Greek Scientists Society initiative for COST Actions approaching the end of their four-year term: a vehicle that carries the Action's outputs, network and momentum beyond the point at which COST funding stops. | ||
| What this shows | The sustainability pillars for Insect-IMP and the stakeholders who would anchor each one, converging on a European Insect Breeding and Genetics Hub. | ||
| How to use it | The first-step column is deliberately small and immediate. PASP work that only begins in Year 4 is usually too late. | ||
| Sustainability pillar | What it delivers post-Action | Anchor stakeholders | First step in Year 3-4 |
| European Insect Breeding & Genetics Hub (standards + consultancy) | Durable home for the Action's breeding standards, phenotyping protocols and genetic-evaluation models; mixed revenue (membership, consultancy, training). | EAAP Insect Commission; IPIFF; EFFAB; Hendrix/SYSAAF; leading research groups | Draft a one-page Hub concept note; test appetite with EAAP & IPIFF at the Sept meeting. |
| Code IBeFABAR — insect-breeding standards instrument | Voluntary responsible-breeding code for insects, extending EFFAB's Code EFABAR; certification/market-signal layer. | EFFAB; IPIFF; national breeding & beekeeping associations | Open a formal EFFAB liaison on extending Code EFABAR to insects. |
| International network (global reach) | Formal collaboration linking the European hub to ICIPE (Nairobi) and CEIF (USA); science-diplomacy positioning. | ICIPE; CEIF; COLOSS; WCGALP | Scope memoranda of understanding; position through EAAP and IPIFF international channels. |
| Genomics & phenotyping data commons | FAIR, anonymised insect & honeybee breeding data infrastructure; builds on reference genomes & BeeBreed. | BeeBreed; ICAR; leading research groups; ML/PLF researchers | Define a minimal FAIR data schema; pilot with BeeBreed and one BSF producer. |
| Successor funding pipeline | Horizon Europe / MSCA / international proposals that fund the Hub's first operational years. | DG RTD; related COST Actions & Horizon projects; GSS grant-writing team | Grant-writing retreat (Year 3–4) to produce submission-ready proposals. |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | |||
| INSECT-IMP ROUND ROBIN - SEQUENCED ENGAGEMENT | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What a round robin is | A structured turn-taking format in which every participant gets a dedicated turn in a fixed rotation, rather than the loudest voice dominating. | |||||
| Applied here | Each stakeholder constituency gets its own scheduled round in a planned sequence tied to the Action's milestone calendar, instead of ad-hoc outreach. | |||||
| How to use it | The Core Question is what the round must actually resolve. If it cannot be answered by the people in the room, the wrong people are in the room. | |||||
| Round | Focus | Core Question | Who Should Be in the Room | Output | Lead Insect-IMP WGs | Suggested Timing |
| Round 1 | Scoping & stakeholder prioritisation | Which stakeholder groups must be engaged first, and what does 'engaged' mean for each? | Core Group; WG7 & WG8 leads; stakeholder lead (VM grantee) | Agreed critical-stakeholder list; validated priority tiers; this workbook signed off | WG7·WG8 | Jul 2026 |
| Round 2 | Academic & method anchors | Which adjacent-field methods transfer to insects, and who will bring them in? | EAAP Insect Commission & Genetics Commission; aquaculture and large-livestock quantitative geneticists; COLOSS | EAAP session secured; STSM matches agreed; method-transfer shortlist for WG3/WG5/WG6 | WG3·WG5·WG6 | Jul to Sep 2026 |
| Round 3 | Industry outreach | What will make producers and breeding-services firms share data pre-competitively? | IPIFF Secretariat; Protix; Innovafeed; Ynsect; BetaBugs; Better Origin; Hendrix Genetics; FlyGenetics; SYSAAF | Confidentiality model agreed; breeding-objective and phenotyping case studies committed | WG4·WG5 | Jul to Sep 2026 |
| Round 4 | September stakeholder meeting | What does the Action need from policy, industry and standards bodies in its final year? | DG SANTE; DG AGRI; EFSA; EFFAB; IPIFF; EAAP; national competent authorities; ITC delegates | Shared agenda for Year 4; position-paper scope agreed; co-signature candidates identified | WG7·WG8 | Sep 2026 |
| Round 5 | Honeybee sector consolidation | How do we make genetic evaluation work for commercial beekeeping, not only research stations? | BeeBreed.eu coordinators; national and regional breeding associations; commercial beekeepers; instrumental-insemination providers | BeeBreed data link scoped; commercial-beekeeper protocol gap documented for D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper)/D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) | WG2·WG6 | Late 2026 |
| Round 6 | Policy & standards alignment | How do Insect-IMP outputs map onto Code EFABAR, Reg. 2016/1012 and novel-food evidence needs? | EFFAB Code EFABAR lead; DG SANTE Novel Food Unit; DG AGRI zootechnical desk; EFSA panels; ICAR | Pre-normative input package; Code EFABAR extension scoped; policy brief outline | WG1·WG4·WG7 | Early 2027 |
| Round 7 | Position-paper co-production | What can the Action state jointly with its stakeholders that none could state alone? | Deliverable-critical stakeholders across all categories; 10 to 15 participants maximum | Drafted position paper with agreed co-signatories | All WGs | Mar 2027 |
| Round 8 | Data Training School, Volos | What FAIR data and standards capability does the field need to sustain breeding programmes? | Machine-learning and phenotyping researchers; ITC communities; early-career investigators; data-infrastructure actors | Training School delivered; data-schema pilot agreed; trained cohort for the PASP | WG5·WG6·WG8 | 2027 |
| Round 9 | Dissemination, uptake & PASP planning | How do the Action's outputs continue beyond Year 4, and through which structure? | Core Group; IPIFF; EFFAB; EAAP; ICIPE; CEIF; DG RTD; journals and conference organisers | Uptake plan; PASP scoping toward a European Insect Breeding & Genetics Hub; funding pipeline | All WGs | 2027 |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||
| KEY INDIVIDUALS & ENTRY POINTS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | The organisations and role-level entry points behind the priority stakeholder groups, with the route by which each is best approached. | |||||
| Privacy | Individuals are identified by role or office, never by name, and no personal data is held here. Confirm the current post-holder before any approach. | |||||
| Tier and rank | Both are pulled live from Combined Priority using the stakeholder ID, so this tab can never contradict the ranking. | |||||
| ID | Organisation / body | Role-level entry point | Why they matter | Relationship route | Tier | Rank |
| 16 | IPIFF (International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed) | Secretary-General / Secretariat | Principal industry-reach channel; around 85 members; regulatory-dialogue interface. | Direct Secretariat contact; General Assembly slot | Tier 1 | 1 |
| 7 | EAAP — Study Commission on Insects & Insect Genetics WG | Commission President / WG convener | The MoU's first workshop target; the Action's academic home venue. | Via EAAP Insect Commission officers; Action MC members | Tier 1 | 2 |
| 32 | EFFAB — European Forum for Animal Breeders | Secretary-General; Code EFABAR lead | Standards-governance anchor; Code EFABAR alignment is an explicit MoU commitment. | Formal liaison letter; via EAAP Genetics Commission | Tier 1 | 3 |
| 28 | BeeBreed.eu (LIB / AGT honeybee evaluation) | Database / evaluation coordinator | Existing pan-EU honeybee breeding-value system; D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) and D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) must engage its data pipeline. | Via COLOSS honeybee-genetics network | Tier 1 | 9 |
| 9 | COLOSS (Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes) | Executive Committee; relevant Core Project leads | International honeybee research hub; honeybee-side reach and BEEBOOK methods. | Via honeybee-genetics research groups in the Action | Tier 1 | 8 |
| 23 | Hendrix Genetics — insect division | Insect-programme R&D lead | Runs the single most established insect-breeding programme (via Protix). | Senior bilateral engagement; via SYSAAF and industry contacts | Tier 1 | 29 |
| 25 | SYSAAF (French Poultry & Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre) | Insect / aquaculture breeding lead | Selection-programme governance and record-keeping discipline transferable to insects. | Via Innovafeed and FlyGenetics cooperation channel | Tier 1 | 19 |
| 10 | Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh | Quantitative-genetics group lead (BetaBugs link) | Named MoU collaborator; applied quantitative-genetics anchor for black soldier fly work. | Direct academic outreach; via BetaBugs | Tier 1 | 11 |
| 12 | Aquaculture breeding research community | Senior aquaculture quantitative geneticists | The MoU's primary knowledge-transfer source (batch phenotypes since the 1980s). | Via EAAP; STSM invitations | Tier 1 | 6 |
| 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE | Novel Food Unit desk officer | Controls novel-food authorisation, the gate to insect-food markets. | Via IPIFF regulatory dialogue; WG7 scoping note | Tier 1 | 5 |
| 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI | Animal-breeding / zootechnical policy desk | Owns Reg. 2016/1012, the EU interface for breeding-programme recognition. | Via EFFAB; national delegates | Tier 1 | 4 |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||
| TOP 10 TARGETS - YEAR 3-4 PRIORITY LIST | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | The ten highest Overall Scores, pulled dynamically from Combined Priority. Re-weight the instruments there and this list re-orders itself. | ||||||
| How to use it | This is the shortlist for the September 2026 stakeholder meeting and for the Virtual Mobility outreach. Each row carries a reason and a concrete first move. | ||||||
| Editing the text | The why-now and first-action wording lives in the lookup table lower down this sheet, keyed by stakeholder ID. Edit it there and it flows up automatically. | ||||||
| Note on ties | Where two stakeholders share the same score the ranking takes the first match, so review ties before acting on the order. | ||||||
| Rank | ID | Stakeholder | Category | Overall score | Tier | Why now (Year 3-4) | First action |
| 1 | 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | 86.5 | Tier 1 | Industry gateway; must be engaged before the Sept meeting to reach producers. | Contact IPIFF Secretariat; request a General Assembly workshop slot. |
| 2 | 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | 84.6 | Tier 1 | Lock the workshop venue for Year-3/4 dissemination across all WGs. | Propose an Insect-IMP session at the next EAAP annual meeting. |
| 3 | 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | 82.6 | Tier 1 | Code EFABAR alignment underpins the position paper's credibility. | Send a formal Code EFABAR alignment liaison letter. |
| 4 | 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | 82.5 | Tier 1 | Primary EU policy anchor for the Year-4 position paper. | WG7 briefing mapping D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations)/D4.1 (Traits and economic value report)/D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) to Reg. 2016/1012. |
| 5 | 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | 82.3 | Tier 1 | Novel-food route is the slowest policy channel — start immediately. | WG7 scoping note to the Novel Food Unit via IPIFF. |
| 6 | 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 82.2 | Tier 1 | Core knowledge-transfer source; recruit now to feed D3/D5/D6. | Issue STSM/workshop invitations to senior aquaculture quant-geneticists. |
| 7 | 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | 79.9 | Tier 1 | Production engine behind every deliverable; coordinate authorship now. | WG-level authorship coordination; STSM matchmaking. |
| 8 | 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | 79.5 | Tier 1 | Honeybee-side reach for D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations)/D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) must be secured early. | Liaise via COLOSS for honeybee inputs; align D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) with BEEBOOK. |
| 9 | 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | 78.3 | Tier 1 | D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper)/D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) honeybee credibility depends on a BeeBreed data link. | Open a data-pipeline conversation with BeeBreed coordinators. |
| 10 | 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | 77.8 | Tier 1 | EFSA opinion cycles are long; identify rapporteurs this year. | Map EFSA NDA/FEEDAP cycles; identify rapporteurs. |
| LOOKUP TABLE - why now / first action by stakeholder ID (edit freely) | |||||||
| ID | Why now | First action | |||||
| 1 | Novel-food route is the slowest policy channel — start immediately. | WG7 scoping note to the Novel Food Unit via IPIFF. | |||||
| 2 | Primary EU policy anchor for the Year-4 position paper. | WG7 briefing mapping D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations)/D4.1 (Traits and economic value report)/D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper) to Reg. 2016/1012. | |||||
| 3 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 4 | EFSA opinion cycles are long; identify rapporteurs this year. | Map EFSA NDA/FEEDAP cycles; identify rapporteurs. | |||||
| 5 | National implementation layer; ITC-weighted briefings. | ITC-prioritised national briefings via delegates and WG7. | |||||
| 6 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 7 | Lock the workshop venue for Year-3/4 dissemination across all WGs. | Propose an Insect-IMP session at the next EAAP annual meeting. | |||||
| 8 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 9 | Honeybee-side reach for D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations)/D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) must be secured early. | Liaise via COLOSS for honeybee inputs; align D2.1 (Mating-behaviour Training School) with BEEBOOK. | |||||
| 10 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 11 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 12 | Core knowledge-transfer source; recruit now to feed D3/D5/D6. | Issue STSM/workshop invitations to senior aquaculture quant-geneticists. | |||||
| 13 | Livestock methods (social effects, GxE) transfer into D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper). | Engage via the EAAP Study Commission on Genetics. | |||||
| 14 | Production engine behind every deliverable; coordinate authorship now. | WG-level authorship coordination; STSM matchmaking. | |||||
| 15 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 16 | Industry gateway; must be engaged before the Sept meeting to reach producers. | Contact IPIFF Secretariat; request a General Assembly workshop slot. | |||||
| 17 | Reference industrial BSF programme (Hendrix partner); anchor D4/D5 cases. | Direct industry-partner outreach for breeding-objective & phenotyping cases. | |||||
| 18 | MoU-named industrial BSF actor; secure the D4/D5 case study early. | Outreach via the FlyGenetics/SYSAAF cooperation channel. | |||||
| 19 | Leading mealworm automated-phenotyping case; secure for D5.1 (Phenotyping recommendations). | Invite to the WG5 phenotyping workshop; secure the mealworm case. | |||||
| 20 | BSF SME with Roslin link; offer benchmark participation for D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper). | Coordinate via Roslin; offer BSF EBV benchmark participation. | |||||
| 21 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 22 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 23 | Most established insect-breeding programme; senior engagement. | Senior bilateral engagement framing work as complementary. | |||||
| 24 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 25 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 26 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 27 | Operational backbone of honeybee breeding; co-design D1.1 (Genetic-diversity recommendations) dissemination. | Coordinated outreach with BeeBreed & ITC delegates. | |||||
| 28 | D6.1 (Breeding-values technical paper)/D6.2 (Genetic-evaluation Training School) honeybee credibility depends on a BeeBreed data link. | Open a data-pipeline conversation with BeeBreed coordinators. | |||||
| 29 | MoU flags a protocol gap for them — needed to make outputs operational. | Convene a commercial-beekeeper consultation with BeeBreed. | |||||
| 30 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 31 | Feed-buyer demand defines D4.1 (Traits and economic value report) trait economics — the market signal WG4 needs. | Run an insect-protein quality consultation via IPIFF and the WG4 workshop. | |||||
| 32 | Code EFABAR alignment underpins the position paper's credibility. | Send a formal Code EFABAR alignment liaison letter. | |||||
| 33 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 34 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 35 | Long-lead global venue; submit an Action symposium proposal now. | Submit an Action symposium proposal; co-publish with IPIFF. | |||||
| 36 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 37 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 38 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 39 | Engage in line with its tier and engagement gap. | Schedule a first contact and confirm the relationship owner. | |||||
| 40 | Pipeline for STSMs, Training Schools and the March workshop. | Open STSM/Training-School calls; reserve March workshop seats. | |||||
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | |||||||
| COMBINED PRIORITY - OVERALL SCORE & AUTO-TIERING | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | All six instruments brought onto one comparable 0 to 100 scale and combined into a single Overall Score, with tiering that follows automatically. | ||||||||||||
| Why normalise | The instruments use different native scales: salience classes, 1 to 5 ratings, a 0 to 100 influence figure, a 0 to 4 engagement gap and a 0 to 1 SWOT score. They cannot be added until they share a scale. | ||||||||||||
| Normalisation used | Salience: (composite - 3) / 12. Power-Interest: ((Power - 1) + (Interest - 1)) / 8. Influence-Impact: the mean of Influence and (Impact - 1) / 4. D-Critical: 100 or 0. Engagement gap: gap / 4. SWOT: score. Each is then expressed out of 100. | ||||||||||||
| Configuring it | The six weights and the four thresholds below are all editable. The Overall Score divides by the sum of the weights, so they need not total exactly 100. | ||||||||||||
| Effort-Value | Pairs the effort implied by the engagement gap against the value implied by the score. High effort with high value is a Major project; high effort with low value is Thankless; low effort with high value is a Quick win; low effort with low value is a Fill-in. | ||||||||||||
| Sensitivity | Flags any stakeholder whose score sits within the borderline band of a tier boundary, where a small change of judgement would move it between tiers. | ||||||||||||
| WEIGHTS (edit these) | Salience | Power-Interest | Influence-Impact | D-Critical | Engagement gap | SWOT | |||||||
| value -> | 30 | 15 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 10 | 100 | <- weight total | |||||
| THRESHOLDS | Tier 1 >= | 65 | Tier 2 >= | 45 | Borderline band +/- | 3 | High-effort gap >= | 75 | |||||
| Rank | ID | Stakeholder | Category | Salience (norm) | Power-Int (norm) | Infl-Impact (norm) | D-Critical (0/100) | Eng. gap (norm) | SWOT (norm) | OVERALL SCORE | Tier | Sensitivity | Effort-Value |
| 1 | 16 | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | Industry — insect producers | 83 | 88 | 93 | 100 | 75 | 73 | 86.5 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 2 | 7 | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | Academia & research networks | 83 | 88 | 94 | 100 | 50 | 77 | 84.6 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 3 | 32 | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | Standards & governance | 75 | 75 | 90 | 100 | 75 | 83 | 82.6 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 4 | 2 | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | Policy & regulatory | 75 | 75 | 92 | 100 | 75 | 78 | 82.5 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 5 | 1 | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Policy & regulatory | 75 | 75 | 91 | 100 | 75 | 78 | 82.3 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 6 | 12 | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 75 | 75 | 91 | 100 | 75 | 77 | 82.2 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 7 | 14 | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | Academia & research networks | 75 | 75 | 92 | 100 | 50 | 77 | 79.9 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 8 | 9 | COLOSS network | Academia & research networks | 75 | 75 | 90 | 100 | 50 | 77 | 79.5 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 9 | 28 | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | Industry — honeybee sector | 75 | 75 | 90 | 100 | 50 | 65 | 78.3 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 10 | 4 | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) | Policy & regulatory | 75 | 63 | 90 | 100 | 50 | 78 | 77.8 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 11 | 10 | Roslin Institute (University of Edinburgh) | Academia & research networks | 75 | 63 | 89 | 100 | 50 | 77 | 77.5 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 12 | 6 | CBD / Nagoya Protocol national focal points | Policy & regulatory | 83 | 63 | 76 | 100 | 50 | 78 | 77.4 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 13 | 13 | Large-livestock breeders and quantitative geneticists | Academia & research networks | 67 | 63 | 89 | 100 | 50 | 77 | 75.1 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 14 | 8 | World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) | Academia & research networks | 67 | 63 | 75 | 100 | 50 | 77 | 72.3 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 14 | 11 | University of Cambridge | Academia & research networks | 67 | 63 | 75 | 100 | 50 | 77 | 72.3 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 14 | 31 | Feed manufacturers (aquafeed, pet-food, poultry-feed) | Industry — downstream value chain | 58 | 75 | 74 | 100 | 75 | 63 | 72.3 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 17 | 18 | Innovafeed (France) | Industry — insect producers | 58 | 63 | 75 | 100 | 75 | 73 | 71.7 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 18 | 35 | International Conference Insects to Feed the World (5th Edition) | Networks & dissemination | 58 | 63 | 72 | 100 | 75 | 75 | 71.3 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 19 | 25 | SYSAAF — French Poultry and Aquaculture Breeders Technical Centre | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 58 | 63 | 73 | 100 | 75 | 65 | 70.5 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 20 | 5 | National competent authorities (zootechnical, feed & food safety) | Policy & regulatory | 58 | 63 | 75 | 100 | 50 | 78 | 69.7 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 21 | 15 | Precision-livestock-farming / phenotyping & machine-learning researchers | Academia & research networks | 50 | 50 | 84 | 100 | 75 | 77 | 69.5 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 22 | 17 | Protix (Netherlands) | Industry — insect producers | 58 | 63 | 75 | 100 | 50 | 73 | 69.2 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 23 | 36 | Specialised peer-reviewed journals | Networks & dissemination | 58 | 63 | 73 | 100 | 50 | 75 | 69 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 24 | 34 | Insecta conference (annual, Germany) | Networks & dissemination | 58 | 63 | 71 | 100 | 50 | 75 | 68.6 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 25 | 38 | Adjacent EU-funded research projects in insect & honeybee science | Capacity & cross-cutting | 58 | 63 | 72 | 100 | 50 | 71 | 68.4 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 26 | 27 | National & regional honeybee breeding associations | Industry — honeybee sector | 58 | 63 | 74 | 100 | 50 | 65 | 68.2 | Tier 1 | Quick win | |
| 27 | 40 | Early-Career Investigators (PhDs, postdocs) | Capacity & cross-cutting | 58 | 50 | 68 | 100 | 75 | 71 | 68.1 | Tier 1 | Major project | |
| 28 | 19 | Ÿnsect (France) | Industry — insect producers | 50 | 50 | 72 | 100 | 75 | 73 | 66.7 | Tier 1 | Borderline | Major project |
| 29 | 20 | BetaBugs (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | 50 | 63 | 71 | 100 | 50 | 73 | 66 | Tier 1 | Borderline | Quick win |
| 29 | 23 | Hendrix Genetics (insect division) | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 50 | 63 | 75 | 100 | 50 | 65 | 66 | Tier 1 | Borderline | Quick win |
| 31 | 39 | ITC research communities | Capacity & cross-cutting | 58 | 50 | 69 | 100 | 50 | 71 | 65.8 | Tier 1 | Borderline | Quick win |
| 32 | 29 | Commercial beekeepers | Industry — honeybee sector | 50 | 50 | 69 | 100 | 75 | 65 | 65.3 | Tier 1 | Borderline | Major project |
| 33 | 21 | Better Origin (United Kingdom) | Industry — insect producers | 50 | 50 | 69 | 100 | 50 | 73 | 63.6 | Tier 2 | Borderline | Quick win |
| 34 | 24 | FlyGenetics | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 42 | 50 | 69 | 100 | 50 | 65 | 60.4 | Tier 2 | Quick win | |
| 35 | 3 | European Commission — DG RTD (research & innovation) | Policy & regulatory | 67 | 63 | 77 | 0 | 50 | 78 | 57.8 | Tier 2 | Quick win | |
| 35 | 26 | Instrumental-insemination & honeybee mating-station service providers | Industry — breeding & genetics services | 42 | 38 | 65 | 100 | 50 | 65 | 57.8 | Tier 2 | Quick win | |
| 37 | 33 | ICAR — International Committee for Animal Recording | Standards & governance | 67 | 50 | 58 | 0 | 50 | 83 | 52.5 | Tier 2 | Quick win | |
| 38 | 22 | Other European insect-farming SMEs (mealworm, cricket, BSF) | Industry — insect producers | 42 | 50 | 66 | 0 | 75 | 73 | 48.1 | Tier 2 | Major project | |
| 39 | 37 | Adjacent insect-farming technology providers (substrate, rearing equipment, automation, sensors) | Capacity & cross-cutting | 42 | 50 | 54 | 0 | 50 | 71 | 43 | Tier 3 | Borderline | Fill-in |
| 40 | 30 | National beekeeper federations | Industry — honeybee sector | 33 | 38 | 49 | 0 | 50 | 65 | 36.9 | Tier 3 | Fill-in | |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | |||||||||||||
| RADAR - TOP 10 TARGETS ACROSS ALL EIGHT INSTRUMENTS | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | Each of the ten priority stakeholders profiled on every instrument at once, so the shape of the relationship is visible, not just its rank. | |||||||||
| Common scale | All lenses are on 0 to 100. Power, Legitimacy, Urgency, Interest and Impact are converted from their 1 to 5 scale as (x - 1) / 4 x 100. Influence is already 0 to 100. The engagement gap is gap / 4 x 100. SWOT is score x 100. | |||||||||
| Reading the shape | A long spoke means more of that quality, with one exception: a long engagement-gap spoke marks a distance still to be closed. | |||||||||
| It is live | Columns follow the current Top 10 ranking, so re-weighting Combined Priority reshapes this chart. | |||||||||
| Lens | International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed (IPIFF) | European Federation of Animal Science (EAAP) — Study Commission on Insects (incl. Insect Genetics WG) and Study Commission on Genetics | European Forum for Animal Breeders (EFFAB) — Code EFABAR | European Commission — DG AGRI (animal breeding & agriculture) | European Commission — DG SANTE (food safety; novel foods) | Aquaculture breeders and quantitative geneticists | Leading European insect & honeybee genetics research groups | COLOSS network | BeeBreed.eu — centralised honeybee genetic evaluation system | European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) |
| Power | 75 | 75 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 75 | 75 |
| Legitimacy | 100 | 100 | 100 | 75 | 75 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Urgency | 75 | 75 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 50 | 50 |
| Interest | 100 | 100 | 75 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 75 | 50 |
| Impact | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Influence | 86 | 88 | 80 | 84 | 82 | 82 | 84 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
| Engagement gap | 75 | 50 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| SWOT | 73 | 77 | 83 | 78 | 78 | 77 | 77 | 77 | 65 | 78 |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | ||||||||||
| RADAR - CATEGORY ENGAGEMENT PROFILE | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | The same eight instruments averaged by stakeholder category, so whole constituencies can be compared rather than individual organisations. | ||||||||
| Common scale | Identical conversion to the Top 10 radar: everything on 0 to 100. | ||||||||
| It is live | Averages are computed with SUMPRODUCT across the Register's category column, so any change to a raw score moves the relevant profile immediately. | ||||||||
| Read it as | A category with high legitimacy but low power needs an ally. One with a wide engagement gap and high impact is where the Action is most exposed. | ||||||||
| Category | Power | Legitimacy | Urgency | Interest | Impact | Influence | Engagement gap | SWOT | # stakeholders |
| Policy & regulatory | 87.5 | 83.3 | 45.8 | 45.8 | 87.5 | 79 | 58.3 | 78 | 6 |
| Academia & research networks | 50 | 97.2 | 63.9 | 86.1 | 94.4 | 78.4 | 55.6 | 77 | 9 |
| Industry — insect producers | 57.1 | 57.1 | 53.6 | 64.3 | 78.6 | 69.4 | 64.3 | 73 | 7 |
| Industry — breeding & genetics services | 56.3 | 56.3 | 31.3 | 50 | 75 | 65 | 56.3 | 65 | 4 |
| Industry — honeybee sector | 43.8 | 75 | 43.8 | 68.8 | 75 | 65.5 | 56.3 | 65 | 4 |
| Industry — downstream value chain | 75 | 50 | 50 | 75 | 75 | 72 | 75 | 63 | 1 |
| Standards & governance | 75 | 100 | 37.5 | 50 | 75 | 73 | 62.5 | 83 | 2 |
| Networks & dissemination | 50 | 75 | 50 | 75 | 75 | 68 | 58.3 | 75 | 3 |
| Capacity & cross-cutting | 37.5 | 68.8 | 56.3 | 68.8 | 68.8 | 62 | 56.3 | 71 | 4 |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | |||||||||
| DASHBOARD | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| What this shows | Live counts across the analytical tabs. Every figure is a COUNTIF, so editing any score anywhere updates these totals immediately. | ||
| How to use it | Watch the Tier distribution when re-weighting. If almost everything lands in Tier 1 the weights are not discriminating and the thresholds need tightening. | ||
| Total external stakeholders mapped | 40 | ||
| Deliverable-critical | 35 | ||
| By Tier (Combined Priority) | |||
| Tier 1 | 32 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Tier 2 | 6 | ■■■■■■ | |
| Tier 3 | 2 | ■■ | |
| By salience class | |||
| Definitive | 26 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Dominant | 7 | ■■■■■■■ | |
| Dangerous | 0 | ||
| Dependent | 6 | ■■■■■■ | |
| Dormant | 0 | ||
| Discretionary | 1 | ■ | |
| Demanding | 0 | ||
| Latent | 0 | ||
| By Power-Interest quadrant | |||
| Manage Closely | 31 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Keep Satisfied | 2 | ■■ | |
| Keep Informed | 7 | ■■■■■■■ | |
| Monitor | 0 | ||
| By Influence-Impact quadrant | |||
| Critical Player | 24 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Influencer | 0 | ||
| High Dependence | 13 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Peripheral | 3 | ■■■ | |
| By SWOT band | |||
| Strong ally | 8 | ■■■■■■■■ | |
| Favourable | 23 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Mixed | 9 | ■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Difficult | 0 | ||
| By Effort-Value | |||
| Major project | 14 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Quick win | 24 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Thankless | 0 | ||
| Fill-in | 2 | ■■ | |
| By MoU-citation | |||
| Yes | 28 | ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Implied | 10 | ■■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Inferred | 2 | ■■ | |
| By category | |||
| Policy & regulatory | 6 | ■■■■■■ | |
| Academia & research networks | 9 | ■■■■■■■■■ | |
| Industry — insect producers | 7 | ■■■■■■■ | |
| Industry — breeding & genetics services | 4 | ■■■■ | |
| Industry — honeybee sector | 4 | ■■■■ | |
| Industry — downstream value chain | 1 | ■ | |
| Standards & governance | 2 | ■■ | |
| Networks & dissemination | 3 | ■■■ | |
| Capacity & cross-cutting | 4 | ■■■■ | |
| © 2026 Greek Scientists Society (GSS). Analysis and methodology by Theo Zacharis. Working file, circulated to the Insect-IMP Stakeholder & Impact Task Force for calibration. Not licensed for redistribution. | |||