Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE)

Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources

Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE) European Research contract QLK5-CT-2001-00560

SAFE PROJECT FINAL PROGRESS REPORT (August 2004 - January 2005)

Volume 1 :Objectives; Work plan; Management and

Coordination; Exploitation and Dissemination

Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe Project – Fourth Year Report – Volume 1 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1: OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENTS.................................... 2

PART 2: PROJECT WORKPLAN.............................................................................. 3

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3

Project structure, planning and timetable...................................................... 3

Deliverables...................................................................................................... 3

Overview of progress during the final 6 months........................................... 4

Main problems encountered ........................................................................... 9

PART 3-1: WORK PACKAGES REPORTS............................................................. 10

PART 3-2: CONTRACTOR REPORTS.................................................................... 11

PART 4: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION................................. 12

SAFE human management............................................................................ 12

SAFE financial Management ......................................................................... 12

PART 5: EXPLOITATION AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES ............................. 15

The SAFE project and European policy in the making ............................... 15

The SAFE project end-users conferences were attended by more than 500 stakeholders in Europe ................................................................................. 17

The SAFE project in the media ..................................................................... 18

New silvoarable plantations as a consequence of the SAFE project. ....... 21

The SAFE project on the internet ................................................................. 22

PART 6:ETHICAL ASPECTS AND SAFETY PROVISIONS ................................... 25

The following reports are also available on line on the SAFE Web site:

Workshop Reports

Final SAFE workshop Zurich, November 2004

CMC Reports and Minutes

6th CMC report, Zurich (November 2004)

End-users Conferences Reports:

French national conference (Paris, 26/01/2005) Greek national Conference (Thessaloniki, 4/02/2005) Spanish national Conference (Madrid, 15/02/2005) Dutch national Conference (Wageningen, 20/04/2005) German national Conference (Rostock, 26/05/2005) European final Conference (Brussels, 30/03/2005)


PART 1: OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED ACHIEVEMENTS These are almost unchanged from the Technical Annex. See the Technical Annex for a full description of the objectives. See the second year report for a synthesis.

However, during the last Consortium Management Committee in Zurich (November 2004), two decisions were met regarding two deliverables of the project:

D10.4 Prototype of user-friendly SAFE model.

Given the complexity of the models, and the difficulty that we had to finalise them, we will include the development of this prototype as a key action of the Technological Implementation Plan. However, to comply with the SAFE Technical annex, the current models (Hi-sAFe, Yield-sAFe and Farm-sAFe) are available upon request to the web master of the SAFE Internet site. However, no support can be granted to would-be users in the short term. INRA, WU and Cranfield University will seek new funds for producing improved soft wares ready for use by end-users.

D9.2 European land status for the agroforestry plot proposal.

After having identified key issues of land status in some of the European countries, the SAFE consortium considered that the work required would not be achievable within the SAFE project. It would require to master nationals laws from many Europeans countries, and this was not feasible for us (no lawyers from each country available). We included in D9.3 'Agroforestry Policy Options' document an analysis of this issue for some European countries (France, Spain).


PART 2: PROJECT WORKPLAN

INTRODUCTION

The SAFE project intended to i) assess the production and value of silvoarable systems, ii) forecast the potential of silvoarable agroforestry to be adopted as a new farming system, and iii) suggest guidelines for a coherent package of forestry and agri-environmental incentives which will not disadvantage agroforestry when compared with conventional forestry or agriculture.

The work-plan consisted of 10 work packages (WP), each with deliverables and milestones. WP1 was closed during the first year as expected. All other WPs were active during the final 6 months of the project.

Figure 1: Frenzy final work sessions at the final SAFE Consortium meeting in Zurich in November 2004: trying to finalise the SAFE models in time…

PROJECT STRUCTURE, PLANNING AND TIMETABLE

Modifications to the SAFE work plan

No modifications to the work plan were decided during the last 6 months of the project.

DELIVERABLES

Eleven deliverables were made available during the final period of the project, including 3 that were due during previous periods of the project.


WP Title Partner Expected

in month

Delivered in

month

6 D6.1 Time-series predictions of tree and crop yields WU 24 42

2 D2.2 Identification of European target farming systems FAL 30 36

8 D8.2 Economic feasibility of AF in target regions report CRAN 30 42

9 D9.1 Major silvoarable systems of interest in Europe CNR 36 42

6 D6.4 Scientific papers on the model WU 38 42

2 D2.3 Farmers' view on silvoarable issue report APCA 38 42

7 D7.2 Plot economics of European silvoarable systems CHAV 39 42

7 D7.3 Optimum AF systems for different regions report APCA 39 42

7 D7.4 Scientific papers on socio-economic studies CHAV 40 42

9 D9.3 'Agroforestry Policy Options' document NERC 42 42

10 D10.3 Final report to the EU INRA 42 46

All the deliverables are available on-line on the Web site. They were all burned on a CD that was delivered to the European commission.

OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS DURING THE FINAL 6 MONTHS

The final 6 months of the SAFE project were somewhat frenzy…. A number of dedicated SAFE participants did spend days and nights, labour days and weekends to meet our commitments. The SAFE final end-users conferences were deadlines that forced us to invest. We had to face two difficult challenges:

1. Analysing the impressive amount of data generated by the Yield-sAFe and Farm-sAFe models to analyse the economics of silvoarable agroforestry across Europe. Anil Graves and Paul Burgess were key actors in this field, with the dedicated help of Joao Palma, Fabien Liagre, Felix Herzog

2. Synthesising European national policies to address the issue of agroforestry policies at the European scale. Gerry Lawson and Fabien Liagre did succeed in this task.

Modern silvoarable systems allow trees to be introduced back in cultivated or grazed plots either as aligned (left) or scattered (right) widely spaced trees. In both cases, crop production is maintained, and environmental benefits from the trees are significant.


• The SAFE project held a final Consortium Management Committee at Zurich (Switzerland) on the 5 November 2004. A final plan for the end of the project was decided, and included more person-months inputs than described in the SAFE technical Annex.

• The final scientific workshop of the SAFE project took place at Zurich from 2-6 November 2004. The agenda of the workshop included a synthesis of the modelling activities of the project (biophysical, economic and geographic models), a working session on policy issues, and some rehearsals for the final SAFE project Conferences.

• The final end-user conferences of the project were organised in France (Niort 15/15/2004, Orléans 16/12/2004, Besançon 18/02/2005 and Paris 26/01/2005), Spain (Madrid, 15/02/2005), Greece (Thessaloniki, 4/02/2005), Brussels (30/03/2005), Wageningen (20/04/2005), Rostock (25/05/2005). A final SAFE Conference is scheduled in the UK (Gregynog 29/06/05). Full details on these events are available on the SAFE web site, including the slideshows used during the Conferences.

• The web site was intensively used and was increasingly visited (about 2500 visitors in 6 months)

• A significant number of scientific papers were submitted to international journals during the period. They are all available on line on the web site, and some of them are included in the volume 4 of this final progress report.

• The report on plot economics of silvoarable systems was delivered. We used the Yield-sAFe model and its bio-economic version Plot-sAFe to produce a study of Silvoarable agroforestry profitability at the European scale. We examined in details the results of the 1197 scenarios simulated with Farm-sAFe on the 19 European LTS.

• The report on the farmers’ view on silvoarable systems was delivered, and extensively used during the final Conferences of the SAFE project. It gave unexpected results indicating that a large proportion of European farmers are open to adopting the silvoarable technology.

• All remaining milestones were met during the last 6 months, except two of them that could not be met due to delays in the validation of biophysical models. These two milestones will be met thanks to the future activity presented in the Technological Implementation Plan. They do not prevent the project from delivering all its Deliverables.

• Many extension papers were published by journals on the SAFE project, including a paper in the RTD info journal of the European Commission that is available at the following URL: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinfo/43/article_1656_fr.html


Figure 2: Field tour in traditional agroforestry systems with fruit trees in Switzerland during the final SAFE workshop (November 2004). Activities included tasting

traditional agroforestry products (bottom)

•The major deliverable of the SAFE project was released just in time, at Brussels on March 30 2005. It is the “Options for Agroforestry Policy in the European Union” document.


•The number of scientific papers published or submitted has significantly increased during the last period of the project. The comprehensive list of papers is included below.

List of the SAFE scientific papers produced during the final 6 months of the contract

Published papers

Dupraz C., 2005. From silvopastoral to silvoarable systems in Europe: sharing concepts, unifying policies. In Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Land Management. Mosquera-Losada R., Riguerio, A., McAdam J., Eds, CAB International, 432 pages.

Dupraz C., Liagre F., Manchon O., Lawson G., 2004. Implications of legal and policy regulations on rural development: the challenge of silvoarable agroforestry in Europe. In: Meeting the challenge: Silvicultural Research in a changing world. IUFRO World Series Volume 15, Parotta et al, (Eds.), 34-36.

Accepted papers

Dupraz C., 2005. Entre agronomie et écologie : vers la gestion d’écosystèmes cultivés ?. revue Demeter, Paris

Eichhorn E.P., Paris P., Herzog F., Incoll L.D., Liagre F., Mantzanas K., Mayus M.,,Moreno Marcos C., Dupraz C., Pilbeam DJ., 2005. Silvoarable agriculture in Europe – past, present and future. Agroforestry Systems

Graves, A. R., Burgess, P.J., Liagre, F., Dupraz C. & Terreaux, J.-P. (2005). Development and use of a framework for characterising computer models of silvoarable economics. Agroforestry Systems (in press)

Moreno G., Obrador J.J., Cubera E., Dupraz C., 2005. Root distribution in Dehesas of Central-Western Spain. Plant and Soil, accepted for publication


Moreno, G., Obrador, J. J., Garcia, E., Cubera, E., Montero, M. J., Pulido, F. & Dupraz, C. (2005) Competitive and Facilitative interactions in dehesas of C-W Spain. In Press, special issue of Agroforestry Systems.

Palma, J., Graves, A., Bregt, A., Bunce, R., Burgess P., Garcia, M., Herzog, F., Mohren, G., Moreno, G. and Reisner, Y. (2004). Integrating soil erosion and profitability in the assessment of silvoarable agroforestry at the landscape scale. In Proceedings of the Sixth of the International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) European Symposium on Farming and Rural Systems at Vila Real 4-7 April 2004. 817-827. Proceedings available at: http://home.utad.pt/~des/ifsa/index.htm

Submitted papers

Graves A.R., Burgess P.J., Palma J.H.N., Herzog F., Moreno G., Bertomeu ., Dupraz C., Liagre F., Keesman K., van der Werf W., 2005. The development and application of bio-economic modelling for silvoarable systems in Europe. Submitted to Ecological Engineering.

Mulia R., Dupraz C., 2005. Unusual fine root distributions of two deciduous tree species observed in Southern France: what consequences for root dynamics modelling? Submitted to Plant and Soil

van der Werf W., Keesman K., Burgess P., Graves A., Pilbeam D., Incoll L.D., Metselaar K., Mayus M., Stappers R., van Keulen H., Palma J., Dupraz C., 2005. Yield-SAFE: a parameter-sparse process-based dynamic model for predicting resource capture, growth and production in agroforestry systems. Submitted to Ecological Engineering.

Papers in preparation

Dufour L., Dupraz C., 2005. Effect of tree competition on durum wheat yield in a Mediterranean agroforestry system. In preparation for EJA

Dupraz C, Vincent G., Lecomte I., Van Noordwijk M. 2006. Modelling 3D interactions of trees and crops with the Hi-SAFE model. In preparation for Forest Ecology and Management

Dupraz C., Liagre F.. Agroforesterie pratique. Editions France Agricole, en préparation, 250 pages environ

Lusiana B., Noordwijk M V., Dupraz C. and de Willigen P. A process-based algorithm for sharing nutrient and water uptake between plants rooted in the same volume of soil II. Nutrients in static root systems

Mulia R., Dupraz C., van Noordwijk M. A 3D model with voxel automata to simulate plant root growth in heterogeneous soil condition. I. Modelling concepts

Noordwijk M v, Lusiana B., Dupraz C., Radersma S., Ozier-Lafontaine H. and de Willigen P., A process-based algorithm for sharing nutrient and water uptake between plants rooted in the same volume of soil (In preparation for Plant and Soil).

Noordwijk M. v, Mulia R. Dupraz C., Lusiana B. A process-based algorithm for sharing nutrient and water uptake between plants rooted in the same volume of soil III. Growing root systems

Noordwijk M.v., Lusiana B., Dupraz C.,, Radersma S., Ozier-Lafontaine H., de Willigen P., 2006. A process-based algorithm for sharing nutrient and water uptake between plants rooted in the same volume of soil I. Water in static root systems


Terreaux J.P., Chavet M., Dupraz C., 2004, An intertemporal approach of Land Equivalent Ratio for agroforestry plots, Lameta, DT 2004-15, 18 p. In preparation

Terreaux JP, Michel Chavet, Anil Graves, Christian Dupraz, Paul Burgess and Fabien Liagre Evaluating agroforestry investments. In preparation for Agroforestry Systems

The development of a model of arable, silvoarable and forestry economics" by A. R. Graves, P. J. Burgess, Fabien Liagre, Christian Dupraz & Jean-Philippe Terreaux.

MAIN PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

At the time of writing this final report of the SAFE project (May 2005), no money payments for the third year (August 2003 – July 2005) of the project have been made yet. This was a major problem for some of the SAFE contractors with no systems of cash flow advance.

With the end of the contracts of most of the temporary staff employed by the SAFE consortium, less task force was available for synthesising the achievements and preparing the final reports. This explains why this final report was delivered with 3 months delay as compared to the deadlines. We apologise for this.

Analysing the huge amount of simulated data by the SAFE models was probably the most difficult issue that the SAFE consortium had to solve during this final period. It was a collective challenge, and it was collectively addressed after the Zurich workshop. The Technological implementation plan will make clear that a large number of outputs from these projects can now be expected. But we managed it in time, and the dedication of some SAFE colleagues was impressive. The coordinator wishes to express here its deepest thanks to Anil Graves, Joao Palma, Fabien Liagre and Paul Burgess for their out of the ordinary involvement during these last months of the project.

Figure 3: Designing silvoarable systems for the future of Europe… (Zurich final workshop of the SAFE consortium)


PART 3-1: WORK PACKAGES REPORTS

(See Volume 2)

For convenient handling of the report, the work package reports have been published in a separate volume (Vol. 2).


PART 3-2: CONTRACTOR REPORTS

(See Volume 3)

Again for convenient handling of the main report, the contractor reports have been published in a separate volume (Vol. 3).


PART 4: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION INRA co-ordinated the SAFE project.

SAFE HUMAN MANAGEMENT

During the final 6 months of the project, the main co-ordinating activities included:

•Maintaining the enthusiasm of the consortium until the last days, and until the final end-users conferences.

•Preparation and organisation of the final contract reports to the EU, including technical and financial reports, and of the Technological implementation plan.

•Organisation and moderation of the final CMC meeting, and preparation of the CMC reports.

•Stimulating SAFE members to invest in writing scientific papers for international journals

•Meeting the media needs for papers on the SAFE project. A large number of papers were published on the SAFE project during the last period, including a comprehensive paper published by the European commission in its RTD info journal. Check : http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinfo/43/article_1656_fr.html

Project management is considered as a distinct WP, and required 4 person-month during the third year (including two months by Isabelle Lecomte in February and March 2005 for finalising the reports).

SAFE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Modification of the SAFE Consortium budget

Some minor modifications of the SAFE budget were decided during the last 6 months of the project. They were approved by the Scientific Officer of the project, Dr. Martin Greimel. They did not include any transfer from one contractant to another, but only slight adjustments within some partners’ budgets (INRA, AUTH).

The final budget of the SAFE project is reminded in table 1. It was modified 5 times during the contract. The first modification occurred in and new modified signed contract forms were provided. Between October 2004 and January 2005, 4 small adjustments were applied for and approved by the scientific officer. All e-mails approving the budget modifications are attached to this letter.


The final version of the budget is presented below and includes the 5 successive modifications. This budget is available in the Excel file SAFE budget final control.xls that is available on the SAFE web site (SAFE_fourth_year_cost_statements folder).

Final budget after the five approved modifications

Role No Short Name

Person-months

Personnel Costs

Durable Equipment

Sub-contract Travel Consu-

mables Computing Overhead Costs

Total Costs

Costs Basis

% Requested

Requested Contribution

CO 1 INRA 199 639906 8165 153052 42909 0 0 1123225 1967257 FC 32CO 1 Co-ordination 20,4 89814 0 0 20179 0 0 0 109994 FC 32CO 1 Total INRA 219,4 729720 8165 153052 63089 0 0 1123225 2077251 FC 32 664928CR 2 WU 70 213191 0 49701 19861 3774 2781 47041 336347 AC 100 336347CR 3 NERC 30 148577 0 0 16210 4284 13162 179791 362023 FC 50 181012CR 4 UNIVLEEDS 24,7 83457 0 0 13088 5933 0 20495 122973 AC 100 122973CR 5 CRAN 53 176502 0 17299 27483 5875 7500 43472 278131 AC 100 278131CR 6 CNR-IAS 80 224768 0 0 20000 0 0 179801 424569 FF 50 212285CR 7 UEX 25,5 34137 9200 7685 12907 15019 0 14252 93200 AC 100 93200CR 8 FAL 54,3 336218 0 0 15000 5000 0 0 356218 AC 0 0CR 9 APCA 24,3 98654 0 0 18416 948 0 23603 141622 AC 100 141622CR 10 AUTH 19,8 23002 0 8750 11220 5937 0 8044 56953 AC 100 56953

TOTAL 600,9 2068226 17365 236487 217273 46770 23442 1639725 4249288 2087450

Table 1: The final budget of the SAFE (QLK5-CT-2001-00560) project

At the time of consolidating the final cost statements, the fate of the third year cost statement was not known. It was not possible for us to anticipate or take into account costs that would possibly have been rejected in the third year cost statement.

Details of sub-contracts costs.

The following sub-contract costs were modified:

Contractor Sub-contractor Old budget New budget Modification INRA CHAVET 75919 65577 -10342 WU GPG 30620 26220 -4400

Total costs submitted by the SAFE Consortium

The total costs submitted by the SAFE consortium are 30 674 euros lower than the maximum eligible costs included in the contract. Table 2 indicates the total costs submitted and underline the items were total costs are less than what was included in the contract.

Total costs submitted to the European union

Role No Short Name

Person-months

Personnel Costs

Durable Equipment

Sub-contract Travel Consu-

mables Computing Overhead Costs

Total Costs

Costs Basis

% Requested

Requested Contribution

CO 1 INRA 733 146 8 483 152 869 48 048 0 0 1 349 367 2 292 075 FC 32 733 464CO 1 Co-ordination 93 873 0 0 16 441 0 0 0 110 314 FC 32 35 300CO 1 Total INRA 827 019 8 483 152 869 64 489 0 0 1 349 367 2 402 388 FC 32 769 005CR 2 WU 214 667 0 50 097 22 598 2 824 0 48 018 338 202 AC 100 338 202CR 3 NERC 144 887 0 0 23 950 398 13 172 175 304 357 711 FC 50 178 855CR 4 UNIVLEEDS 79 821 0 0 12 300 9 486 0 20 321 121 929 AC 100 121 929CR 5 CRAN 170 715 0 17 138 28 910 6 447 7 343 42 366 272 943 AC 100 272 943CR 6 CNR-IAS 231 416 0 0 14 445 0 0 185 133 430 994 FF 50 215 497CR 7 UEX 34 120 10 123 7 685 13 168 14 619 0 14 406 94 122 AC 100 94 122CR 8 FAL AC 0 0CR 9 APCA 100 294 0 0 16 336 1 281 0 22 875 140 786 AC 100 140 786CR 10 AUTH 22 986 0 8 750 12 620 6 719 0 8 465 59 539 AC 100 59 539

TOTAL 1 825 925 18 606 236 538 208 816 41 774 20 515 1 866 255 4 218 614 49 2 066 699

Costs in white cells are higher than the contract values and will not be totally eligible. Costs in red cells

are lower than the contract values.

Table 2: The total cost of the SAFE consortium during the SAFE (QLK5-CT-2001-00560) Project


Man-Month involvement in the SAFE project

The total allocation of person-month to the SAFE project is 715 person-month, an excess of 81.9 person-months as compared to the contract ELEKTRA CPF files. INRA, UEX and APCA contributed more than was anticipated, while WU and NERC contributed less.

FOURTH YEARRole No Short Name Permanent Contracted Subcontract Total Permanent Contracted Subcontract Total Excess Deficit Balance Excess Deficit Balance

CO 1 INRA 9,1 6,0 3,0 18,1 10,7 18,4 6,0 35,2 17,0 0,0 31,8 3,6 28,3CO 1 INRA Co-ordination 2,2 0,0 0,0 2,2 4,3 0,0 0,0 4,3 2,1 0,0 3,5 0,0 3,5

CO 1 INRA Total 11,3 6,0 3,0 20,3 15,1 18,4 6,0 39,5 19,2 0,0 35,2 3,5 31,7CR 2 WU 1,5 0,0 2,0 3,5 2,3 2,7 5,0 1,5 0,0 1,5 25,4 -24,0CR 3 NERC 4,3 0,0 0,0 4,3 3,0 3,0 0,0 1,3 0,0 11,9 -11,9CR 4 UNIVLEEDS 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,9 1,2 3,8 4,9 4,0 0,0 7,9 2,6 5,3CR 5 CRAN 0,2 5,3 0,0 5,5 2,6 6,0 0,2 8,8 3,3 0,0 14,5 2,9 11,6CR 6 CNR-IAS 12,8 0,0 0,0 12,8 9,0 2,0 11,0 0,0 1,8 24,3 1,8 22,5CR 7 UEX 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,5 6,6 2,0 0,5 9,1 8,6 0,0 28,0 0,1 27,9CR 8 FAL 1,5 8,4 0,0 9,9 0,2 14,1 14,3 4,4 0,0 9,6 0,7 8,9CR 9 APCA 2,8 2,3 0,0 5,1 1,5 8,5 10,0 4,9 0,0 16,1 0,0 16,1CR 10 AUTh. 1,0 2,0 0,5 3,5 0,5 0,5 0,0 3,0 3,8 9,9 -6,2

TOTAL 36,3 23,9 6,0 66,2 41,9 54,8 9,4 106,1 45,9 6,1 39,9 140,8 58,9 81,9

Split for INRANo Short Name Permanent Contracted Subcontract Total Permanent Contracted Subcontract Total Excess Deficit Balance Excess Deficit Balance

1 AMAP 1,9 0,0 0,0 1,9 5,1 5,1 3,2 0,0 5,2 2,4 2,81 UAFP 1,3 0,0 0,0 1,3 2,4 2,4 1,1 0,0 1,5 4,0 -2,51 SYSTEM 1,8 6,0 3,0 10,8 6,5 18,4 6,0 30,9 20,1 0,0 37,3 0,6 36,71 PIAF 2,8 0,0 0,0 2,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 2,8 0,0 15,3 -15,31 APC 3,5 0,0 0,0 3,5 1,1 1,1 0,0 2,5 12,4 2,5 10,01 TOTAL 11,3 6,0 3,0 20,3 15,1 18,4 6,0 39,5 19,2 0,0 19,2 51,2 19,5 31,7

Fourth YEAR MAN-MONTHSOfficial Contract Allocated Balance Cumulated balance

Official Contract Allocated Balance Cumulated balance

Table 3: Man-Month allocation to the SAFE project during the last 6 months of the SAFE project.

The full details of the calculation are included in the Excel file “SAFE budget final control.xls” that is available on the SAFE web site disk at http://www.montpellier.inra.fr/safe/private/index.htm?PHPSESSID=59adcca45629280640a272ec8d8897db

Man-Month involvement in the whole SAFE project

The total allocation of person-month to the SAFE project is finally 715 person-month, an excess of 81.9 person-months as compared to the ELEKTRA CPF files. INRA, UEX and APCA contributed more than was anticipated, while WU and NERC contributed less.


PART 5: EXPLOITATION AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES

THE SAFE PROJECT AND EUROPEAN POLICY IN THE MAKING

Two significant events happened during the last year of the project:

The draft of a new European Regulation for Rural Development was published.

It included a specific article (number 41) on agroforestry, following the SAFE project recommendations (14 July 2005).

The proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) includes a whereas 38 and an article 41 dealing with agroforestry: : Whereas 38. Agri-forestry systems have a high ecological and social value by combining extensive agriculture and forestry systems, aimed at the production of high-quality wood and other forest products. Their establishment should be supported. Article 41: First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land

1. Support provided for in Article 34(b) (ii), shall be granted to farmers to create agroforestry systems combining extensive agriculture and forestry systems. It shall cover the establishment costs. 2. Agroforestry systems refer to land use systems in which trees are grown in combination with agriculture on the same land. 3. Christmas trees and fast-growing species for short-term cultivation shall be excluded from support. 4. Support shall be limited to the maxima laid down in Annex I.

The draft was reviewed by specific European bodies (Committee of the regions, Economic and social Committee) and the Agriculture commission of the European parliament. All these bodies approved the agroforestry article. The Agriculture commission introduced a slight modification:

Amendment 80 Article 41, paragraph 3

Previous wording New wording

3. Christmas trees and fast-growing species for short-term cultivation shall be excluded from support.

3. Christmas trees, invasive or alien species, and fast-growing species for short-term cultivation shall be excluded from support.

Justification

New forests, which do not encourage wildlife, are replacing alpine meadows, steppe grassland and other valuable habitat types listed under Annex I of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), as well as jeopardising the basis upon which NATURA 2000 sites have been


designated. For this reason, it is important that certain conditions are met before the afforestation of agricultural or non-agricultural land is permitted. This would include the

requirement for an appropriate environmental impact assessment.

The final step is the approval by the Council of ministers. The council should examine the new RDR in June 2005.

The “guidelines for agroforestry policy” were delivered by the SAFE consortium to the European Commission on March 30 2005

Figure 4: Images from the final SAFE Conference at Brussels on 30 March 2005 (left: introductory talk by MEP Marie-Anne Isler-Beguin; right: a view of the audience)

The SAFE project has produced 4 key policy proposals. They are only summarised here. Please refer to the deliverable for a better understanding of the proposals

Proposal 1: A definition of agroforestry is suggested that includes isolated trees, tree hedges and low-density tree stands, which clearly distinguishes between agroforestry and forestry.

Definition: Agroforestry systems refer to an agriculture land use system in which high-stem trees are grown in combination with agricultural commodities on the same plot. The tree component of agroforestry systems can be isolated trees, tree-hedges, and low-density tree stands. An agroforestry plot is defined by two characteristics: a) at least 50% of the area of the plot is in crop or pasture production, b) tree density is less than 200/ha (of stems greater than 15 cm in diameter at 1.3 meter height), including boundary trees.

Proposal 2: The total area of an agroforestry parcel should be eligible for the Single Payment Scheme. This proposal is compatible with existing Regulations, removes the contradiction between the two pillars of the CAP on rural trees (farmers will no longer be stimulated to remove trees to get CAP payments), and simplifies controls, and therefore saves a lot of European money

Proposal 3: The draft RDR for 2008-2013 includes a welcome and innovative Article 41 that introduces support for the establishment of new agroforestry systems. It could be supplemented: a) to include maintenance costs for agroforestry planting in the same way as in Article 40 for forest plantations; b) to support the eligibility of existing agroforestry systems for improvement and environmental payments.


Proposal 4: The EU Action Plan for Sustainable Forest Management (2006) should emphasise the need to maintain or increase the presence of scattered trees in farmed landscapes (agroforestry). The 1998 EU Forest Strategy refers to agroforestry several times, but it was not mentioned in the Commissions recent review of implementation of the Strategy. This omission could be corrected in: a) the proposed Action Plan for Sustainable Forest Management (2006), b) The EU Rural Development Policy Document (2006).

THE SAFE PROJECT END-USERS CONFERENCES WERE ATTENDED BY MORE THAN 500 STAKEHOLDERS IN EUROPE

The audience to the SAFE Conferences was impressive: 200 persons in France (including 90 at Paris), 120 at Thessaloniki, 30 at Brussels, 110 at Madrid, 30 at Wageningen and 50 at Rostock. Many positive feedbacks were recorded from both stakeholders in rural development and policy officers from the different countries.


Thessaloniki

Paris

Bruxelles

Madrid

Wageningen: field tour at Volker Repelaer’s silvoarable plots after the conference Rostock

Figure 5: Views of the audiences at the Thessaloniki, Paris, Madrid, Brussels, Wageningen and Rostock SAFE end-users Conferences

THE SAFE PROJECT IN THE MEDIA

During the final 6 months of the project, a large number of papers were published in technical journals. They are displayed on the SAFE web site, (press 'Review' section). Most were published in France, Germany and Spain. Some papers were also published in countries that


do not participate in the SAFE consortium like Belgium. More are to come out in the next months.

Sciences et Vie, France, n°1050, March 2005 Green futures n° 47 - July/August 2004

Figure 6: Two examples of articles published on the SAFE project focussing on the productivity of silvoarable systems evidenced by the SAFE consortium


La terre - September 2004

Figure 7: Example of a comprehensive paper in a farmer journal focussing on both the ecology and the feasibility of silvoarable agroforestry


NEW SILVOARABLE PLANTATIONS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SAFE PROJECT.

18 ml

9 ml

The silvoarable plot includes walnuts trees and irrigated seed crops with sprinklers. Sprinklers are located

on the tree row, minimising the loss of cropped land for the irrigation device. The farmer discusses the design of the plot with both the forestry and the crop advisers of the local agriculture chamber

Figure 8: A new 25 ha silvoarable project in a farm near Béziers, France (March 2005).

In France, more than 1000 ha of modern agroforestry plots are now established, which is an unexpected high rate of adoption (Figure 8). This move is not yet visible in other European countries, but the new regulation will probably offer the agroforestry opportunity to most European farmers.

A further impact is that there may be more research into agroforestry in the immediate: scientists from different disciplines are now interested in analysing environmental aspects of agroforestry systems that are not covered by the SAFE project. A new European project has been launched recently (SEAMLESS) with an agroforestry component.


THE SAFE PROJECT ON THE INTERNET

The Safe web site is regularly updated with new documents, activity results and meeting reports. A special page “Agroforestry and the new CAP” was opened in the public section to display current proposals of new European regulations on agroforestry.

Figure 9: Example of picture in "Agroforestry Landscapes" slide show

Figure 10: Public page showing SAFE project third annual report

Most of these documents are in PDF format to avoid prohibited copies and to keep size reasonable for downloading time.

Detailed statistics have been added in the private section, to monitor the SAFE web site visits. It is interesting to note that the SAFE reports for the second and the third year of the project were accessed by 346 and 322 visitors respectively.


Figure 11: Anonymous visits progression (non registered visitors) from May 2002 to May 2005 (Visits up to June 10th included)

Page Language Description Hits index.php Home page 8943 french/objectives.php FR Safe project objectives 2617 private/private.php3 UK Private member access 2073 english/objectives.php UK Safe project objectives 1722 french/agroforestry.php FR Agroforestry introduction 631 french/stage.php FR Work opportunities 582 english/results/annual_report_index.php

UK Annual report presentations index 534

french/french_policies.php FR French policies 438 french/links_2.php FR Useful Links page 2 405 french/diapo/serie1.php FR Diaporama serie 1 395 english/agroforestry.php UK Agroforestry introduction 382 french/links_1.php FR Useful Links page 1 348 english/results/annual_report_2.php UK Annual report year 2 346 english/results/annual_report_3.php UK Annual report year 3 322 english/diapo/serie1.php UK Diaporama serie 1 320 english/links_2.php UK Useful Links page 2 320 english/partners.php UK Safe partners 318 french/diapo/serie3.php FR Diaporama serie 3 316 english/results/annual_report.php UK Annual report presentations index 310

Figure 12: The most visited web pages since March 2004


Visitor Number of hits 1 INRA - France 1051 2 CIRAD, France 367 3 Ministry of Agriculture, France 155 4 CNRS, France 143 5 University of Florida, USA 142 6 ENITAB, France 135 7 Cemagref, France 123 8 Napier University – Edinburgh, UK 102 9 Dumrath & Fassnacht KG, Germany 76 10 Chambre Agriculture Ille et Vilaine, France 72 11 Ecole Supérieure Agriculture Angers, France 71 12 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain 65 13 University of Central Lancashire, UK 64 14 Université du Havre, France 63 15 Universitaet Hohenheim, Germany 53 16 Commission of the European Communities 50 17 Faculte de Gembloux, Belgique 48 18 Forest Research Institute Budapest, 47 19 SPIEGEL, Germany 45 20 Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain 43 21 Rectorat de Bordeaux, France 42 22 ENFA Toulouse, France 41 23 Universite de Laval, France 41 24 Université de Moncton, Canada 38 25 CTIFL, France 37 26 Agropolis – Montpellier, France 35 27 Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Network,

Bulgaria 35

28 Chambre agriculture du Doubs, France 35 29 University Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany 33 30 Federal Institute of Technology Zurich,

Switzerland 32

Figure 13: 30 best visitors (except consortium members) during the last 6 months of the project

The site visits are steadily increasing, with a total of 7500 anonymous visitors since the site opened. But the site remains mainly a working tool for all the SAFE participants. The web site was surfed 50 times by European Commission staff during the last 6 months.


PART 6:ETHICAL ASPECTS AND SAFETY PROVISIONS The SAFE project does not come within the scope of any of the ethical aspects listed in the Framework VI call for proposals. The SAFE project does not make use of any genetically modified organisms.

Documents

Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE)