€¦ · System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European Science and Society INTEGRATED PROJECT EU FP 6 (contract no. 010036) Global Change and Ecosystems Project

System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European Science and Society

INTEGRATED PROJECT EU FP 6 (contract no. 010036) Global Change and Ecosystems Project duration: January 2005 - December 2008

Periodic activity report of

SEAMLESS Integrated project D0.1.2

Period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005

Martin van Ittersum and Joost Wolf – WU (Eds.) With contributions from Board members, WP-leaders, Task leaders, User

Liaison Officer and Gender Task Expert

SEAMLESS No. 010036 Deliverable number: Periodic activity report 2005 08 February 2006

Page 2 of 196

SEAMLESS integrated project aims at developing an integrated framework that allows ex-ante assessment of agricultural and environmental policies and technological innovations. The framework will have multi-scale capabilities ranging from field and farm to the EU25 and globe; it will be generic, modular and open and using state-of-the art software. The project is carried out by a consortium of 30 partners, led by Wageningen University (NL). Email: [email protected] Internet: www.seamless-ip.org

Authors of this report and contact details

Name: Martin van Ittersum Partner acronym: WU Address: Haarweg 333, 6709 RZ Wageningen, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Joost Wolf Partner acronym: WU Address: Haarweg 333, 6709 RZ Wageningen, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

Disclaimer:

“This publication has been funded under the SEAMLESS integrated project, EU 6th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration, Priority 1.1.6.3. Global Change and Ecosystems (European Commission, DG Research, contract no. 010036-2). Its content does not represent the official position of the European Commission and is entirely under the responsibility of the authors.”

"The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability."


Page 3 of 196

Table of contents 1 Executive summary 5

1.1 Introduction, project objectives and consortium 5 1.2 Main activities in year 2005 7 1.3 Use and impact of SEAMLESS-IF 10

2 Project objectives and major achievements 15 2.1 Overview of general project objectives 15

2.1.1 Overall objectives 15 2.1.2 State-of-the-art 16 2.1.3 Specific objectives per Work Package 18

2.2 Recommendations from previous reviews and implementation 24 2.3 Objectives, work performed, contractors involved, problems and corrective measures 30

2.3.1 WP1 - Conceptual and methodological design and integration of SEAMLESS-IF 30 2.3.2 WP2 – Indicators and threshold value for integrated sustainability assessment at multiple

scales 33 2.3.3 WP3 – Quantitative tools and models for integrated sustainability impact assessment at

multiple scales 35 2.3.4 WP4 - Databases for integrated sustainability impact assessment at multiple scales 41 2.3.5 WP5 – SeamFrame software: architecture and implementation 43 2.3.6 WP6 – Evaluation of SEAMLESS-IF and its components in typical real situations 47 2.3.7 WP7 – Participatory development, dissemination, training and use of SEAMLESS-IF 49

3 Work Package progress in first year 53 3.1 Overview of the objectives and actions per Work Package 53

3.1.1 WP1 – Conceptual and methodological design and integration of SEAMLESS-IF 53 3.1.2 WP2 - Indicators and threshold value for integrated sustainability assessment at multiple

scales 56 3.1.3 WP3 - Quantitative tools and models for integrated sustainability impact assessment at

multiple scales 61 3.1.4 WP4 – Databases for integrated sustainability impact assessment at multiple scales 76 3.1.5 WP5 – SeamFrame Software: architecture and implementation 84 3.1.6 WP6 – Evaluation of SEAMLESS-IF and its components in typical real situations 90 3.1.7 WP7 – Participatory development, dissemination, training and use of SEAMLESS-IF 95

3.2 List of deliverables 98 3.3 List of milestones 104

4 Consortium management 109 4.1 Consortium management tasks and achievements 109

4.1.1 Objectives, deliverables and contractors 109 4.1.2 General management aspects 110 4.1.3 Overall co-ordination 111 4.1.4 Scientific co-ordination, planning and monitoring system 113 4.1.5 Knowledge management 115 4.1.6 Summary assessment of current achievements and status 118

4.2 Project timetable and status 119 4.2.1 WP1 – WP7 119

4.3 Project meetings and co-operation 123

References 127


Page 4 of 196

Annex A Plan for using and disseminating the Knowledge (PD0.3.1/0.3.5) 129 A-1 Introduction 129 A-2 Exploitable knowledge and its use 129 A-3 Dissemination of Knowledge 130 A-4 Publishable results 139

Annex B Composition and Terms of reference of Scientific Advisory Board and SAB report 143 B-1 Composition of SEAMLESS Advisory Board: 143 B-2 Terms of Reference 144 B-3 Report and Recommendations of Scientific Advisory Board 145

Annex C SEAMLESS Newsletter 165

Annex D Gender Action Plan and Monitoring 169

Annex E On-line reporting questionnaires 177

Annex F Letter to EC about changed partnership of Simulistics 183

Annex G Programme of kick-off meeting of SEAMLESS-IP in Lund 189

Annex H Example of Deliverable evaluation report 193


Page 5 of 196

1 Executive summary

1.1 Introduction, project objectives and consortium

European agriculture and rural areas continuously change as a result of an enlarging EU, WTO agreements, introduction of novel agro-technologies, changing societal demands and climate change. Efficient and effective agricultural and environmental policies are needed to support sustainability of European agriculture and its contribution to sustainable development of society at large. Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of new policies and innovations prior to their introduction, i.e., ‘ex-ante integrated assessment’, is vital to target policy development for sustainable development. The European Commission has introduced Impact Assessment of its policies as an essential step in the development and introduction of new policies since 2003 (EC, 2002; EC, 2005). It is anticipated to contribute to a more coherent implementation of the European strategy for Sustainable Development (EC, 2001). Impact Assessment identifies the likely positive and negative impacts of proposed policy actions, enabling informed political judgements to be made about the proposed policies and identify trade-offs in achieving competing objectives. By nature it implies a demand for multi- and interdisciplinary research and tools, which allow inclusion and evaluation of views of different stakeholders.

The SEAMLESS integrated project aims at developing a computerized, integrated and working framework (SEAMLESS-IF) to assess and compare, ex-ante, alternative agricultural and environmental policy options, allowing:

1. Analysis at the full range of scales (farm to EU and global), whilst focusing on the most important issues emerging at each scale;

2. Analysis of the environmental, economic and social contributions of a multifunctional agriculture towards sustainable rural development and rural viability;

3. Analysis of a broad range of issues and agents of change, such as climate change, environmental policies, rural development options, effects of an enlarging EU, international competition and effects on developing countries.

The overall objective of the SEAMLESS project is to deliver such an integrated and operational framework, with the following specific objectives:

1. To develop and test a multi-perspective set of economic, social and environmental indicators of the sustainability and multifunctionality of systems, policies and innovations in agriculture and agroforestry, and to establish, as far as possible, threshold values for these indicators and/or to enable trade-off analysis.

2. To provide quantitative and qualitative tools and databases for integrated evaluation of agricultural systems at multiple scales and for varying time horizons.

3. To develop a software architecture that allows reusability of model and database components and knowledge, also ensuring transparency of models and procedures developed.

4. To validate and demonstrate the applicability and reliability of SEAMLESS-IF in selected tests of its use.

5. To promote participatory development and use of SEAMLESS-IF, including dissemination, knowledge transfer and training.


Page 6 of 196

6. In order to allow SEAMLESS-IF to be open for further developments, it needs to offer a generic and flexible structure.

In short, SEAMLESS-IF will facilitate translation of policy questions into alternative scenarios that can be assessed through a set of indicators that capture the key economic, environmental, social and institutional issues of the questions at stake. The indicators in turn are assessed using an intelligent linkage of quantitative models. These models have been designed to simulate aspects of agricultural systems at specific scales, i.e. point or field scale, farm, region, EU and world. Application of the models requires pan-European databases for environmental, economic and social issues. Some indicators, particularly social and institutional ones, will be assessed directly from data or via a post-model analysis.

The smooth linkage of models designed for different scales and from biophysical and economic domains requires software architecture, and a design and technical implementation of models that allows this. The software backbone of the project, SeamFrame, serves that purpose. SeamFrame is also developed to facilitate re-use, maintenance and documentation of models.

SEAMLESS (www.seamless-ip.org) brings together 30 participants from 15 countries, with a vast amount of knowledge and expertise from economic, environmental, agronomic, social science and information technology disciplines. The project is coordinated by

1. WU, Wageningen University, The Netherlands and has the following participants (numbers are the contract numbers):

2. INRA, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France

3. CIRAD, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, France

4. UBER, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany

5. ZALF, Centre for Agricultural and Landscape and Land Use Research, Germany

8. CRA, Agricultural Research Council, Italy

9. JRC, Joint Research Centre of EC, Italy

10. NLH (changed into UMB), Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway

11. LU, Centre for Environmental Studies, Lund University, Sweden

12. IDSIA-SUPSI, Instituto Dalle Molle di Studi sull ‘Intelligenza Artificiale, Switzerland

13. PRI, Plant Research International, Netherlands

14. LEI, Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Netherlands

15. ALTERRA, Alterra Research Institute, Netherlands

16. UNEW, Centre for Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

17. SGGW, Warsaw Agricultural University, Poland

18. ILE ASVR, Institute of Landscape Ecology, Czech Republic

19. VUZE, Research Institute of Agricultural Economics , Czech Republic

20. LUEAB, Lund University Education AB, Sweden

21. SIMULISTICS, Simulistics LTD, UK

22. UBONN, Institute for Agricultural Policy, University of Bonn, Germany

23. FLD, Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Denmark


Page 7 of 196

24. IAMM, Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Montpellier, France

25. UEVORA, University of Evora, Portugal

26. NUI Galway, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

27. ANTOPTIMA, AntOptima, Switzerland

28. IER, Institut d’Economie Rurale, Mali

29. UVM, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, USA

30. CEMAGREF, Cemagref, France

31. UNIABDN, University of Aberdeen, UK

32. UEDIN, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, UK

1.2 Main activities in year 2005

The project started January 1, 2005. The first work was to make a review of the basic concepts of systems analysis, sustainability and sustainable development, and integrated assessment that are potentially relevant for the development of the SEAMLESS-IF (Integrated modelling Framework). This information is used to propose a conceptual procedure for integrated analysis and assessment of agricultural systems with SEAMLESS-IF.

Next, an overview of European organisations that were identified as probable users of SEAMLESS-IF, has been reported. The major characteristics of these organisations are described, along with their tasks in relation to assessment of European agricultural and sustainability questions. Information is given about these organisations: to which extent they use modelling today, which issues about agriculture and sustainability they assume to be the most important on the EU agenda in the years ahead, and which requirements they would have on a modelling tool to meet their needs.

Finally, the conceptual basis of the different components of SEAMLESS-IF (Figure 1.1) has been developed and the results of this conceptual work has been summarized in a series of reports. These reports cover the following topics, which will be described in more detail in the following paragraphs: (a) Quantitative models of SEAMLESS-IF and procedures for up- and downscaling; (b) Indicators and threshold values within SEAMLESS-IF and indicators and methods for qualitative pre and post-model analysis; (c) Specification of databases of SEAMLESS-IF; (d) Design of SeamFrame; (e) Procedure for application of SEAMLESS-IF to concrete policy and innovation issues; (f) Complementary participatory methods for SEAMLESS-IF.

The conceptual basis of the SEAMLESS-IF components is now available and will form the basis for the development of the demo version and the first prototype of SEAMLESS-IF (to be completed by June 2006). The specifications for the first prototype are as follows: first, prototype should show the impacts of trade liberalization with (a) no change in WTO (baseline scenario) and (b) change in WTO (policy scenario), full implementation (i.e. cuts in import tariffs, elimination in export subsidies); second, described system consists of mainly the arable sector, spatially EU25, with a level of spatial detail of both farm type and territorial type and third, temporal extend until 2012, and temporal detail of one year steps.

The major activities in 2005 are related to the six different components of SEAMLESS-IF as mentioned above, and can be summarised as:


Page 8 of 196

Ad a) Quantitative models of SEAMLESS-IF; Three core models were defined and a start was made with their development and/or integration in SEAMLESS-IF; APES and FSSIM re-use existing knowledge and concepts but are non-existing ‘models’; CAPRI is an existing model that will be fully integrated in SEAMLESS-IF. In addition, considerable conceptual work has been done on the linkage of farm modelling results (price-supply relationships from FSSIM) to the market model (CAPRI) and vice versa (feedback on prices to FSSIM). - APES (Agricultural Production and Externalities Simulator) is a modular simulation model estimating the biophysical processes of agricultural production systems, at point level, in response to weather and different options of agro-technical management. The processes are simulated in APES with deterministic approaches mostly based on mechanistic representations of biophysical processes. This is done for a variety of regional specific climatic conditions and soils. APES will compute the yields, as well as several inputs and externalities of crop rotations; both averages and variability across years will be generated. In 2005 first versions of weather, crop, grassland, and soil water and nitrogen components of APES were developed.

- FSSIM (Farm System Simulator) is a bio-economic farm model developed to quantify the integrated agricultural, environmental and socio-economic aspects of farming systems. Applied at farm (micro) level, FSSIM seeks to represent the actual farmers’ behaviour using the knowledge of technical and socio-economic constraints, the relation between production factors, the amount of output obtained and the costs of each production activity (= growth of a crop rotation or livestock system) and future market prices. The principal characteristic of this type of models is the application of production functions, partly derived from APES. FSSIM also uses information from statistical data bases and expert knowledge. In 2005, first versions of the generators for agricultural activities (i.e. PEG which generates alternative crop rotations and PTG which generates alternative production techniques) and a template for the mathematical programming model of FSSIM were designed and implemented in SeamFrame. A first running prototype of FSSIM has been developed for Flevoland and is working in January 2006.

- CAPRI is an Agricultural Sector Model of the European Union. It is a comparative static equilibrium model, solved by iterating supply and market modules. CAPRI has a supply module that consists of supply models at different scales, from farm to the European level. These are non-linear programming models allowing direct implementation of most policy measures with highly differentiated sets of activities. Allocation is based on profit maximising behaviour and estimated multi-product cost functions. CAPRI also estimates nutrient balances and gas emissions with global warming potential using a matrix of coefficients linked with the levels of the activities. The CAPRI market module makes prices and quantities consistent given the supply module (above) and the demand/import-export module. CAPRI is being integrated into SeamFrame.

Ad b) Indicators and threshold values within SEAMLESS-IF; a structured set of indicators for sustainable impact assessments in agriculture is to be developed, at scales ranging from farm activity/farm to national or global perspectives. Building on current research approaches for setting and evaluating critical ranges, targets and thresholds are identified, and methods for the assessment of multiple indicators are to be developed. The main work performed in 2005 was to report on research on sustainability indicators, particularly in association with agriculture and the environment, to report on the multi-functionality of agriculture and to examine gaps where few or no indicators have been assessed, to develop the concept for a so-called indicator framework (provide the flexibility for easy identification of relevant indicators when new issues arise), to report on approaches and methodologies used for assessing compatibility of policies and institutional compatibility, and to report on the needs of stakeholders with respect to assessment of indicators (multi-criteria approach).


Page 9 of 196

Ad c) Specification of databases of SEAMLESS-IF: The main objective is to populate the knowledge base of SEAMLESS-IF with data. The knowledge base will adopt a uniform representational paradigm that can represent knowledge in both structural (data) and functional (model) forms, and will allow a transparent and fully automatic flow of information between the two. The data will include model inputs, source data for queries and statistics, metadata and SEAMLESS-IF analysis outputs. The relevant and available farming systems, environmental, economic and social data sets – with coverage for EU-25 and at the global level – will be collected and adapted. A farming systems typology at regional, national and European level is to be developed and economic, social and environmental typologies of regions are to be used for aggregation and disaggregation of data and for providing territorial contexts. The main work performed in 2005 was to report guidelines for populating the first version of the knowledge base, to select environmental datasets for the first prototype, to identify data bases with farming data for the first prototype, to agree upon a typology of farming systems (as based on work in previous projects such as ELPEN and IRENA) with as main discriminating variables size, intensity, and specialization and land use, to identify rural socio-economic data bases for the first prototype, and data bases for the global level. Approximately 80% of the datasets has been made available through the web server at FLD. This includes land cover data, climate data, soil data, data on an environmental classification, and farming data.

Ad d) Design of SeamFrame: The main objective is to deliver SeamFrame, the implemented software architecture for SEAMLESS-IF. SeamFrame will enable to link model components and databases and will provide integration and optimisation algorithms and procedures for data handling and spatial representation, quality control, output visualisation and documentation. This framework will allow to choose the appropriate models, model/tool combinations and data bases for the various policy evaluations of agricultural systems. SeamFrame will provide a set of pre-packaged applications for these decision makers, and a graphical interface. Users belonging to the class of researchers, modellers and systems analysts, however, will use the modelling environment to process models and data. Such scientific tasks will be achieved using components from the component toolbox: the domain editor, a tool for data and ontology manipulation, and the model builder, a tool for creating and editing executable models. The main work performed in 2005 was to develop the overall architectural design of SeamFrame, to contribute to the development of an Animated Narrative Demo (for illustrative purposes only) and a Demo Version of SEAMLESS-IF (comprising a user interface to show its features for different users and applications), which will be used as the interface for the first prototype (to be delivered in June 2006), to design the knowledge manager (i.e. domain editor), to draft a first ontology for data related to different applications (APES, FSSIM, CAPRI), to develop ontologies for APES and FSSIM models, to start the development of ontologies for CAPRI model, to design the integration of the modelling environment within SeamFrame (allowing to ‘plug-in’ alternative modelling environments), with as current choices MODCOM for biophysical models and GAMS for farm economic and market economic models, to design the processing environment, to propose the design of the following SeamFrame applications: FSSIM-DM, APES, FSSIM-MP, SEAMCAP, to start the .implementation of the modelling environment allowing to assemble model components with the simulation and optimisation tools provided by MODCOM and GAMS, respectively, to start the implementation of the Knowledge Manager, to implement a framework (Seam:DAT) to create Data Loaders (providing a layer between an Application Component and the Knowledge Base), to start the implementation of the processing environment based on the OpenMI 1.0 standard, and to develop SeamFrame applications such as a tools for retrieving external data and for integration of models within the framework environment.

Ad e) Procedure for application of SEAMLESS-IF to concrete policy and innovation issues; The main objective is to test, evaluate and guide improvement of SEAMLESS-IF and its


Page 10 of 196

components (e.g. indicators, models, data bases, linkages, SeamFrame) in the context of two Test Cases. The applicability of SEAMLESS-IF and its components are evaluated and improved iteratively, while using SEAMLESS-IF to address specific policy and innovation issues. This requires that the specific issue is translated into a scenario for the Test Case. The applicability of participatory methods when using SEAMLESS-IF in interaction with users and stakeholders, is also to be evaluated. Such interactions with users and stakeholders will take place both during the initial process of indicators and scenario definition, and during the final process of output analysis. The main work performed in 2005 was to report the major characteristics of Test Cases 1 and 2, to provide a general structure of templates for the scenarios, to deliver a preliminary list of indicators for Test Case 1, to start the collection of additional data for the test case regions, and to produce a procedure for using SEAMLESS-IF for policy assessments.

Ad f) Complementary participatory methods for SEAMLESS-IF; The main objectives are to develop and implement participatory methods for effective user and stakeholder dialogue in the SEAMLESS project, and to establish the dissemination of SEAMLESS-IF and its components. This work will also assist in the capacity building necessary for successful implementation of SEAMLESS-IF and for further development and use of SEAMLESS-IF after completion of the IP, and the involvement of stakeholders through annual conferences, and users through the Users Forum (see Section 1.3). Different portfolios of means for participation will be developed, comprising interaction and communication with users and stakeholders. The main work performed in 2005 was to report on potential user organizations inside the European Commission as well as other users, to review the wide range of participatory methods and to choose and develop specific methods for application within SEAMLESS-IF, to contact people and to arrange meetings to discuss SEAMLESS related topics and to identify people suitable for the Users Forum, to complete the first external newsletter which has been sent to international stakeholders and to national interest organizations, and to submit a proposal for funds to arrange external summer schools for training in application of SEAMLESS-IF (however, not yet funded).

1.3 Use and impact of SEAMLESS-IF

In order for SEAMLESS to develop a useful, up to date policy tool for integrated assessment of agricultural and environmental policies the communication with users, stakeholders and the general public is of major importance. The engagements with the public include activities aiming at spreading awareness and knowledge and at exploring the wider social implications of the proposed work.

Prime users of SEAMLESS Integrated Framework are the Directorates General (DG Agriculture, Environment and Economics and Finances) of the European Commission, the JRC and the European Environment Agency (EEA) and we also aim at making the tool useful for national/regional policy making agencies, farmer’s organizations (COPA) and NGOs. A third important future user group we aim at is the scientific community. In order to learn about the needs of these potential user groups, a key objective in the SEAMLESS project is to involve users in the development of the tools from the very beginning of the project.

The activities related to the dissemination of knowledge during the first year of the project can principally be categorized under the headlines of (a) user meetings and User forum, (b) press items, (c) course activities, (d) presentations at scientific conferences and meetings, (e) newsletter, (f) publishable output and (g) SEAMLESS website. Some information on these topics is given in the following. For more detailed information, see Annex A. Some


Page 11 of 196

information on Information exchange and management within SEAMLESS-IP is given at the end of this section. For more information, see Section 4.1.

Since April 2005 information meetings have been held at DG Agriculture and at DG Environment. At these meetings the Animated Narrative Demo (AND) was shown and further user involvement was discussed. In October 2005 user meetings with prime users and other users were held in Brussels. Prime users represented three DGs (Agri, Environment and EcFin). The interest from users for SEAMLESS-IF was high. Also, decisions were made on the establishment of a User Forum, and it was agreed the three DGs will nominate persons for such Forum. A first meeting of this User Forum which will meet twice a year, is anticipated for April 2006. During each meeting the progress of the project will be demonstrated via the Demo version and the Prototypes of SEAMLESS-IF and the feedback and user requirements will be assembled.

Information about the SEAMLESS project has been published by various news media. These were, for example, articles in local, national and EU papers/magazines and articles on university web pages. In relation to the SEAMLESS kick-off conference in Lund, South Swedish Television broadcasted an interview with SEAMLESS representatives.

The SEAMLESS project is an integrated project that deals with many scientific challenges. These are related to the interdisciplinary nature of the project, the linking of models ranging over scales from field to global, and the participatory methods. The advanced approaches applied within the project in these and other fields are of high interest to students involved in various courses of the participating partner universities. In all about 80 students have been participating in these courses.

Presentation at meetings by SEAMLESS participants have mainly been given during two conferences, first, 97th Annual Meeting, American Society of Agronomy, November 2005 and second, Advances and Applications for Management and Decision Making MODSIM05, December 2005. As the development SEAMLESS-IF is continuing, we foresee that the presentations of new SEAMLESS work at scientific conferences in 2006 will reflect this development.

The first SEAMLESS external newsletter was distributed in November 2005. As the newsletter is aimed for a broad SEAMLESS external audience, the topics were chosen to give a general introduction to the project followed by more specific articles. The newsletter has been sent to international stakeholders as well as national interest organizations and research colleagues. The Newsletter has generally been received well and several contacts with additional stakeholders have been initialised from Newsletter recipients. The Newsletter is available on the website.

Results from the SEAMLESS project are made available through its website. These results are available for scientific cooperation and for non-commercial applications. Available output from SEAMLESS will consist of reports, software, data bases and system output. Besides, publications have resulted and will result from the scientific work within SEAMLESS, as listed in Annex A.

Information about the progress of SEAMLESS-IP is mainly available through its website: http://www.seamless-ip.org/. This website gives the latest SEAMLESS news, information on objectives and organisation of the project, the structure of the SEAMLESS integrated framework, information about publications resulting from the project, and gives the list of SEAMLESS reports that can be downloaded. Increasingly, output from SEAMLESS such as reports, software, data bases and system output, will be made available during the project.

Internal information exchange and management Management of the project invested largely in setting up an effective web portal (https://portal.wur.nl/sites/seamless/default.aspx) for internal communication, exchange of


Page 12 of 196

documents and storage and retrieval of models and data. The portal has the following features: contact lists, calendar, announcements, project events and other events, information about related projects, libraries for project deliverables, models and data, libraries for presentations and references, lists of SEAMLESS press, and external contacts. The portal is an indispensable tool to facilitate communication within the project. Each of the work packages uses the portal for their internal communication, announcements, results of meetings and draft reports.

Tightly linked to the web portal the management developed a Project monitoring system to monitor and communicate progress, delays and corrective measures per project deliverable, work package and partner. This system also contains the full financial details and management of the project. This information can be largely viewed by all participants in the project, but the rights for editing are restricted to WP leaders and partner representatives. All project reporting is organised via this Monitoring system.

Some pictures of the modelling framework applied within SEAMLESS-IF (Figure 1.1), the role of Work packages 1 to 7 in the development of SEAMLESS-IF (Figure 1.2), the integrated research work within SEAMLESS-IP (Figure 1.3), European agriculture (Figure 1.4 and 1.5) and first results from SEAMLESS-IF (Figure 1.6) are presented in the following:

Figure 1.1 Schematic representation of the models, tools, data bases and data flows in SEAMLESS-IF


Page 13 of 196

WP1

Conceptualisationand integration

WP2

Indicators

WP6

Testing andimproving

WP7

User involvementand dissemination

WP5

SEAMFRAMEsoftware

WP3

Quantitativetools and models

WP4

Databases

SEAMLESS-IF Users

Prime users (e.g. DGs)

Research users• development of models with provided

components • development of new components

Figure 1.2 The role of Work Packages 1-7 in the development of SEAMLESS-IF.

Figure 1.3 Integrated research work within SEAMLESS-IP

Figure 1.4 Landscape as a result of European agriculture


Page 14 of 196

Figure 1.5 Regional products from European agriculture

Figure 1.6 First results from application of SEAMLESS-IF to assess and compare alternative agricultural and environmental policy options over Europe

Address of SEAMLESS Office is: Wageningen University, P.O. box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands; Email: [email protected]

Logo of SEAMLESS-project:


Page 15 of 196

2 Project objectives and major achievements

2.1 Overview of general project objectives

2.1.1 Overall objectives

The Call for topic V.2.1.a (Theme Global Change and Ecosystems) seeks the development of an analytical and policy management tool for agricultural and agroforestry systems within the context of multifunctional land use and sustainable rural development. The Call requires that the methodologies to be developed have the capacity to:

1. Analyse the impact of behavioural changes on the main categories of farming systems in relation to rural development options;

2. Identify and measure the different functions of agriculture and internalize the multifunctional roles of agriculture into alternative land use strategies for policy simulation and analysis;

3. Assess interactions between the European Union, associated candidate countries, and the rest of the world, paying attention to issues such as competitiveness, complementarity and multifunctionality.

The call refers explicitly to the combination of policies and drivers that enter the system bottom-up (local environmental policies or technological changes affecting farming systems level through to the higher hierarchical scales) and those that enter the system top-down (market liberalisation policies, that affect the European and global markets, all the way through to the lower hierarchical scales). It requires analysis at scales ranging from the level of individual agricultural activities up to the global scale.

To meet these ambitious aims, SEAMLESS proposes an integrated and operational framework (SEAMLESS-IF) to support ex-ante analysis of policies that enables:

1. Analysis at the full range of scales, whilst focusing on the most important issues emerging at each scale;

2. Analysis of the environmental, economic and social contributions of a multifunctional agriculture towards sustainable rural development and rural viability;

3. Analysis of a broad range of issues and agents of change, such as climate change, environmental policies, rural development options, effects of an enlarging EU, international competition and effects on developing countries.

In order to allow SEAMLESS-IF to be open for further developments, it needs to offer a generic and flexible structure.

The overall objective of the SEAMLESS project is to deliver such an integrated and operational framework, with the following specific objectives:

1. To develop and test a multi-perspective set of economic, social and environmental indicators of the sustainability and multifunctionality of systems, policies and innovations in agriculture and agroforestry, and to establish, as far as possible, threshold values for these indicators and/or to enable trade-off analysis.

2. To provide quantitative and qualitative tools and databases for integrated evaluation of agricultural systems at multiple scales and for varying time horizons.


Page 16 of 196

3. To develop a software architecture that allows reusability of model and database components and knowledge, also ensuring transparency of models and procedures developed.

4. To validate and demonstrate the applicability and reliability of SEAMLESS-IF in selected tests of its use.

5. To promote participatory development and use of SEAMLESS-IF, including dissemination, knowledge transfer and training.

6. In order to allow SEAMLESS-IF to be open for further developments, it needs to offer a generic and flexible structure.

The envisaged SEAMLESS-IF will comprise:

• Software architecture and implementation (SeamFrame) enabling an integrated, modular use of indicators, models and a data and knowledge base;

• Indicators relevant to agriculture, its multifunctionality and the environment, and their evaluation methods;

• Models and tools for the assessment of multifunctionality in agriculture and rural sustainability;

• Knowledge base functional with data and models in a user-friendly format;

• Testing, improvement and demonstrations through real-world applications;

• Training and implementation in order to transfer SEAMLESS-IF to main users.

SEAMLESS-IF will be an open and modular framework and will offer the flexibility to analyse a wide range of issues. For specific questions to be analysed, a subset of models and tools out of the broad range available within SEAMLESS-IF can be used. It will require scientific and technical breakthroughs to enable integration across scales, disciplines and issues. We recognize the ambition of the Call text and are aware of the potential limitations in what can be achieved within a 4 year project timescale. The final product of this IP, however, will be a version of the integrated framework, that is fully operational for a number of key aspects of sustainable development and multifunctionality of agriculture, and that will allow further development to address the broadest variety of issues and conditions.

Target Prime end users of the results of SEAMLESS-IF will be the European Commission Directorates General, particularly DGs Research, Agriculture and Environment but also DGs Regional Policies, Economics and Financial Affairs, External Relations, Trade and Competition, as well as the Joint Research Centre (JRC), European Environment Agency (EEA), including Topic Centres. SEAMLESS-IF will also be useful for potential users, including EU-25 and associated candidate country policy makers and international development organisations. Finally, it will be of high interest to broader groups of stakeholders, such as regional policy makers, private companies, farmers’ organisations, NGOs and the scientific community (including research, training and education).

2.1.2 State-of-the-art

Past and ongoing European agricultural research has generally been thematic, issue and/or scale-specific, and characterised by disparity of methodological and technical approaches, and hence fragmented. Much progress has been made with tools for analysis of cost-


Page 17 of 196

effectiveness and cost-benefits. However, sustainability assessments of European agriculture integrating economic, environmental and social dimensions remain poorly developed. Systems approaches provide one of the few means for analysing and understanding the potential interactions between complex issues at different temporal and spatial scales. Several tools and modelling approaches are now available to evaluate a range of policies using different spatial scales (from farm level to global level) and time horizons (from a few years to decades). Progress has been made using system-analytical approaches in projects in previous EU Framework Programmes, such as CAPRI (EU FAIR3-CT96-1849 - 1997-1999), CAP-STRAT (QLRT-2000-00394 - 2001-2004) ELPEN (QLK5-CT-1999-01296), ENRISK (QLK5-CT-2001-01911) and GECS (EVK2-CT-1999-00010). Nevertheless, a full perspective on interactions remains to be achieved, and is essential for implementation of the Sustainable Development Strategy. Until now, policy makers have had little integrated scientific support (c.f. EuroCARE, 2002; DG Agriculture, 2003) for this. The IP fills this gap by providing an integrated analytical framework. The considerable efforts made to improve modelling of individual environmental processes have not had an equivalent impact on environmental pressures, and the need for integrated assessment and modelling has emerged as a response to the extent and severity of environmental problems in the 21st century (Parker et al., 2002). Such assessment will progress the development of environmental modelling beyond single issue driven approaches. There is a parallel demand for the wider integration of knowledge from natural and social sciences, with a recognition of the greater impact of integrated research teams working together with users and stakeholders in a participatory process (Parker et al., 2002).

Scaling between different spatial levels, and integrative efforts from a range of disciplines (e.g. agronomy, ecology, economics and sociology), are vital for a sufficiently broad perspective on sustainability of agricultural systems. One of the obstacles to the integration of research and to the cross-fertilisation of ideas from different disciplines is the variety of formalisms, which is also reflected in the software tools implementing the research results. Agricultural systems research faces this problem, especially when systems are analysed at larger scales, where the interactions between social, environmental and economic systems cannot be ignored. As a result, different research groups develop and implement their research using incompatible software tools. Models and data are often hard-coded into the software and they are rarely re-usable. End users are often not clearly identified, resulting in the development of tools which cannot be used outside the environments for which they were developed.

Researchers have been aware of this problem since the very moment they started to develop models, but the effort of building open and reusable software has always been greater than the final reward. Over the past two decades, various research groups have been trying to reduce the costs, thanks to innovations in software engineering, and to increase the rewards, thanks to the advances in the integration and in the inter-disciplinary approach to research.

The first attempts have been pioneered in the field of management science, where Dolk and Kottemann (1993), influenced by Geoffrion’s structured modelling (1987), introduced the concept of model integration, identifying major issues such as model, data and solver independence, and proposing innovative solutions. Software tools such as GAMS and AMPL have been greatly influenced by their work. Similar concepts and ideas were used to develop model integration frameworks for water resources management. Some of the first efforts (see a review in Rizzoli et al., 1998) evolved into the most successful current examples of modelling frameworks, such as MMS (Leavesley et al., 1996), MODCOM (Hillyer et al., 2003), TIME (Rahman et al., 2003, 2005) and OpenMI (Gijsbers et al., 2002, 2003).

Thanks to advances in software engineering (Szyperski et al., 2002) and to the cited developments in the implementation and use of modelling frameworks, the SEAMLESS


Page 18 of 196

integrated project is able to target the ambitious goal of providing a new approach to the integration of science for agricultural systems analysis and management. The challenge of SEAMLESS is to integrate these software developments with advances in indicators, models, and data and knowledge bases technologies.

The SEAMLESS integrated modelling framework will be a platform for the development of integrated applications and used by researchers and scientists to produce applications and outputs for policy makers. Research groups will be able to develop agricultural, environmental, economic and social models, at different scales. These models will be seamlessly integrated, while maintaining the logical independence of data, models and simulation/optimisation algorithms.

We are aware of the many obstacles on the envisaged path. The proposed solution will be modular and scalable. SEAMLESS will not provide an “all-or-nothing” solution, but it will provide a pathway towards the adoption of the SEAMLESS approach to integrated modelling. This will be achievable with by the development of separate components from computational aspects such as routines for integration, data access or graphical interfacing, and a declarative approach to modelling. Such an approach will permit the clear delegation of tasks within a multidisciplinary research team, strengthening collaboration and improving integration.

2.1.3 Specific objectives per Work Package

Figure 2.1 illustrates the overall flow of work in the project. WP1 will have a primary role, initiating work and providing scientific integration. The Figure also shows the feedbacks by which prime users will be involved in developing, testing and improving SEAMLESS-IF. WP0, responsible for project management, is not presented in this figure.

WP1

Conceptualisationand integration

WP2

Indicators

WP6

Testing andimproving

WP7

User involvementand dissemination

WP5

SEAMFRAMEsoftware

WP3

Quantitativetools and models

WP4

Databases

SEAMLESS-IF Users

Prime users (e.g. DGs)

Research users• development of models with provided

components • development of new components

Figure 2.1 The role of Work Packages 1-7 in the development of SEAMLESS-IF.

2.1.3.1 WP0 Integrated project co-ordination The main aim of this WP is to ensure that all aspects of the project are well integrated and co-ordinated, that deliverables are timely and that the objectives of the IP are fulfilled. Specific objectives are:


Page 19 of 196

• To provide overall project co-ordination and management;

• To enhance and facilitate integration across WPs, partners and disciplines;

• To support scientific management of the project;

• To implement, evaluate and update the gender action plan;

• To implement, evaluate and update the Plan for using and dissemination of knowledge;

• To establish and apply an operational planning and monitoring system, linked to project deliverables in terms of resources required (time and costs) and timely provision;

• To ensure the final release of SEAMLESS-IF.

2.1.3.2 WP1 Conceptual and methodological design and integration of SEAMLESS-IF

This Work Package determines the conceptual, methodological and technical requirements of SEAMLESS-IF. This Work Package will provide the theoretical basis to combine systems analysis with methodologies for spatial and temporal up- and downscaling of processes, categorisation of systems, evaluation of systems responses to environmental change, as well as user and stakeholder involvement. The Work Package will integrate and guide the scientific Activities in all other Work Packages related to the development of SEAMLESS-IF. Delivery of the demo-version and three prototypes of SEAMLESS-IF are the prime responsibility of this Work Package. More specifically:

• To determine landscape, regional and/or meso economic boundaries for the assessment;

• To determine the requirements of potential users of SEAMLESS-IF;

• To determine the conceptual, methodological and technical requirements of the integrated framework (SEAMLESS-IF) for impact assessment;

• To determine the full range of attributes (economic, environmental and socio-cultural) that require indicators and to select the relevant indicators with WP2;

• To determine the quantitative modelling approaches and their inter-linkages, including up- and downscaling capabilities within SEAMLESS-IF to quantify the indicators;

• To determine the main data requirements and corresponding databases;

• To determine the conceptual basis for the architecture of the technical framework (SeamFrame);

• To determine qualitative tools for pre- and post-model analysis focusing on issues not captured by the quantitative models (i.e. socio-cultural, institutional and historical factors);

• To determine an operational procedure for using SEAMLESS-IF to evaluate policy and innovation measures;


Page 20 of 196

• To determine participatory methods in order to facilitate user involvement and use of the integrated framework;

• To ensure timely delivery of a demonstration version of SEAMLESS-IF as well as first and advanced prototypes and final specifications;

• To develop a concept for maintenance and further development of SEAMLESS-IF after the end of the IP.

2.1.3.3 WP2 Indicators and threshold values for integrated sustainability assessment at multiple scales

This Work Package offers a structured set of indicators for sustainable impact assessments in agriculture. (Semi-) quantitative and qualitative indicators are dealt with, at scales ranging from farm activity/farm to national or global perspectives. Building on current research suitable indicators and threshold values are identified, and areas are identified where knowledge to develop meaningful indicators is lacking for use in the context of SEAMLESS; these gaps will then be filled. Methods for the assessment of multiple indicators are developed and documented, as well as approaches to deal with a wide range of indicators in the context of sustainable impact assessments. A need for innovative approaches arises when multiple indicators combine qualitative and quantitative aspects, and when social and institutional measures need to be taken into account. In summary, the objectives are:

• To develop a structured set of indicators that can be applied at a range of temporal and spatial scales to evaluate the impact of alternative approaches to policy, institutions and technology on the sustainability and multifunctionality of agriculture;

• To explore the extent to which previous research can provide suitable indicators and threshold values;

• To identify areas where data and methods needed to develop meaningful indicators are lacking, and to fill these gaps;

• To develop a methodology for the assessment of the institutional compatibility of different policy options.

• To develop and document methods for assessing threshold values, critical ranges and target values for the developed indicators;

• To develop and document methods for the assessment and evaluation of multiple indicators as affected by various priorities of stakeholders.

2.1.3.4 WP3 Quantitative tools and models for integrated sustainability assessment at multiple scales

The overall goal of this Work Package is to develop quantitative procedures and tools needed within SEAMLESS. These procedures and tools will be used to quantify selected indicators derived from WP2. All tools and approaches will be implemented into SeamFrame, the open and modular software architecture of the SEAMLESS-IF (WP5), use data (WP4) from and provide model specifications to the knowledge base. The analysis tools to be developed include a generic farming system simulator for estimating the externalities and technological performance of agricultural activities, a generic agricultural activities simulator for


Page 21 of 196

biophysical analysis, and a farm level optimising module. These tools are designed to facilitate evaluation of the impacts of top-down as well as bottom-up drivers, including effects of farmers’ and herders’ behavioural changes. Some policies or technological developments will have supply impacts that make agricultural commodity prices endogenous. The farm-level models will therefore be connected to a market level model to enable price adjustments at the farm level modelling. This requires coherent methods for linkage between spatial and hierarchical scales. Such methods will be developed and will be integrated into SEAMLESS-IF. Procedures are proposed and developed for spatial analysis of environmental and ecological impacts of agricultural production at regional scale. Models are developed for sustainable impact assessments onto developing countries, and tools are provided for capturing rural employment and gender impacts. The main aims of this WP are:

• To develop a generic production activities simulator (APES – Agricultural Production and Externalities Simulator) for biophysical analysis that provides the basis for estimating productivity and environmental impacts from production activities;

• To develop a generic Farming Systems Simulator (FSSIM), for modelling different European farming systems;

• To apply FSSIM to different European farm types, as developed in WP4, to enable assessing the impact of policies and innovations on behavioural responses;

• To develop and integrate model components for economic analysis at the market scale;

• To develop methods and model components for linking in a rigorous manner economic modelling at farm and market levels;

• To develop procedures for spatial analysis of environmental and ecological impacts of agricultural production at regional scale as a response to policy scenarios;

• To develop model components for impact assessment of policies on international competitiveness and on selected economic, environmental and social issues in developing countries;

• To develop econometric model components for capturing rural employment and gender impacts.

2.1.3.5 WP4 Databases for integrated sustainability assessment at multiple scales

This Work Package provides a smooth support to the integrative goals of SEAMLESS. The main objective of WP4 is to populate the knowledge base of SEAMLESS designed in WP1 and WP5 with databases. The SEAMLESS knowledge base will adopt a uniform representational paradigm that can represent knowledge in both structural (data) and functional (model) forms, and allow a transparent and fully automatic flow of information between the two. In WP4 the knowledge base will be populated with data and with the information needed to access and combine the data in different formats and at different spatial levels. The data includes model inputs, source data for queries and statistics, metadata and SEAMLESS-IF analysis outputs. The relevant and available farming system, environmental, economic and social data sets – with coverage for EU-25 and at the global level – will be collected and adapted. The adaptation includes developing typologies of farming systems and of regions to be used for organising the data in the knowledge base.


Page 22 of 196

Specific routines, procedures, protocols and knowledge rules will be developed to facilitate access and inclusion in the domain editor developed in WP5. This includes developing protocols for combining spatial and statistical data. In summary, the main aims of this WP are:

• Populating the SEAMLESS knowledge base with data and metadata;

• Reporting metadata for available data sets;

• Collection and adaptation of spatially explicit environmental data at EU-25 level;

• Collection and adaptation of data on farming systems at EU-25 level, including development of a farming systems typology;

• Collection and adaptation of socio-economic data at EU-25 level;

• Collection and adaptation of economic data and data on natural resource use at the global level;

• Protocols for spatial analysis;

• Defining data gaps and setting the agenda for data collection.

2.1.3.6 WP5 SeamFrame Software: architecture and implementation This Work Package provides SeamFrame, the implemented software architecture for SEAMLESS-IF. In order to do so, it offers the basis for applications to manage the SEAMLESS-IF knowledge base, and to develop applications targeted to the end users, built using SeamFrame (the SEAMLESS integrated modelling framework). SeamFrame will provide software components enabling the identification and use of appropriate models and model combinations, and policy evaluation of agricultural systems, from the perspective of the major user classes: decision makers; stakeholders and researchers and modellers. SeamFrame will provide a set of pre-packaged applications for these decision makers, and a graphical interface. Users belonging to the class of researchers, modellers and systems analysts will use the modelling environment to process models and data, as provided by WP3 and WP4 in order to make them available for use within SeamFrame. This task will be achieved using components from the component toolbox: the domain editor, a tool for data and ontology manipulation, and the model builder, a tool for creating and editing executable models. In summary, the main objectives of this WP are:

• To develop SeamFrame, the software architecture for SEAMLESS-IF;

• To develop applications to manage the SEAMLESS-IF knowledge base, which includes models and data and workflows, as well as comments and user experiences about these items;

• To develop applications, targeted to the end users, built using SeamFrame.

2.1.3.7 WP6 Evaluation of SEAMLESS-IF and its components in typical real situations

The overall objectives of this Work Package is to test, evaluate and guide improvement of SEAMLESS-IF and its components (indicators, models, participatory methods) in the context of two Test cases. The applicability, robustness and reliability of SEAMLESS-IF is tested, evaluated and improved iteratively with the other WPs, while using it to address specific


Page 23 of 196

questions. These questions are translated into scenarios that will be evaluated, using tools and procedures developed by the other WPs. Interactions with users and stakeholders will take place both during the initial process of indicators and scenario definition, and during the final process of output analysis.

Two specific objectives relate to testing, improving and evaluating the scientific and technical performance of SEAMLESS-IF when applied to test cases of policy evaluation. This will be conducted in close interaction with WP1-5:

1. To evaluate the applicability, robustness and reliability of the SEAMLESS-IF tools developed in WP 2, 3 and 4. These tools are indicators (WP2); databases and farm typology generators (WP4), quantitative models and their integrating interfaces (WP3); qualitative tools to capture issues not handled by quantitative models (WP2).

2. To evaluate the applicability, robustness and reliability of the SeamFrame architecture (produced by WP5) to ensure successful integration of databases, models, and indicators.

Two additional objectives relate to testing, improving, and evaluating the applicability, robustness and reliability of the SEAMLESS-IF in a user context. This will be conducted in close connection with WP1 and WP7:

3. To evaluate the applicability, robustness and reliability of the participatory methods developed in WP7 when applying and using SEAMLESS-IF in interaction with users and stakeholders. These methods will be used to manage the interactions with users and stakeholders that will take place both during the initial process of indicators and scenario identification (for Test case 2 only) and during the final process of results analysis (for Test case 1 and 2).

4. To provide input to the development of training material and training sessions (by WP7) and to test these in real situations.

2.1.3.8 WP7 Participatory development, dissemination, training and use of SEAMLESS-IF

The objective of this Work Package is to develop and implement participatory methods for effective user and stakeholder dialogue in the SEAMLESS project, and to establish the dissemination of SEAMLESS-IF and its components. In doing so, this Work Package will also assist in the capacity building necessary for successful implementation of SEAMLESS-IF, and the involvement of stakeholders through annual conferences, and users through the Users Forum. Different portfolios of means for participation will be developed, comprising interaction and communication with users and stakeholders. WP7 also offers capacity building for the effective implementation of SEAMLESS-IF, which will form a basis for use and further development of SEAMLESS-IF after completion of the IP.

In summary, the main objectives of this WP are:

• Implement participatory methods for effective user and stakeholder dialogue of the entire SEAMLESS project;

• Dissemination of SEAMLESS-IF and its components;

• Assist capacity building necessary for successful implementation of SEAMLESS-IF;

• Involve stakeholders through annual conferences and users through the Users Forum.


Page 24 of 196

2.2 Recommendations from previous reviews and implementation

The Scientific Advisory Board (SAB – see Annex B for its composition, Terms of Reference and full report) has recently (i.e. 22-24 November 2005) reviewed the SEAMLESS Integrated project. The recommendations of the SAB are given below, followed by the responses by the SEAMLESS Board members (Table 2.2.1). Naturally, the implementation of these recommendations could not be done in such a short period but will be considered on the basis of their relevance, as indicated in the Board responses, in the new Implementation Plan of the project.

Table 2.2.1 Recommendations on SEAMLESS project by Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) November 22-24, 2005 and responses by SEAMLESS Board members

Work-package

Recommendation SAB Response by SEAMLESS BOARD

WP0 Change all 'operational prototype' references to 'working prototype'

An explanation is provided why the project should change terminology of ‘operational prototype’ into ‘working prototype’. Arguments are convincing.

WP0 Remove irrelevant deliverables from the DoW

In the update of the 18 months Implementation Plan project deliverables (PDs) will be carefully reconsidered

WP0 Implement appropriate Quality Assurance across the SEAMLESS project

We appreciate the strong concern about Quality Assurance and Planning for success. Although recent SEAMLESS Board meetings already started to take up these issues, we will surely strengthen efforts in these domains.

WP0 The resources seem appropriate to the project but it is difficult to see the benefit of having so many partners and so many staff with relatively small time allocations. The management overhead at all levels becomes very high, communication is difficult and the large number of staff with small time allocations reduces the opportunity for focused effort. This last point is of critical importance to a project where the objective is not only to solve a science problem but also deliver a fully functional prototype. This should be reported back to the Commission to inform the design of future programmes.

The emphasis of meetings should shift to working sessions and to personnel that spends most of their time on SEAMLESS. Co-located working, as suggested under WP5, might be a good general model for SEAMLESS, and we will seek incentives to encourage such type of working

WP0 There was a low level of concern that SEAMLESS was not making the best use of PhD students or catering to their needs. To create a win-win situation, it would be worth the Board considering both sides needs and how they can be

We realize the importance of PhDs for and in SEAMLESS. Amongst others, the Brixen symposium will acknowledge this, and promote establishment of a network that should enhance opportunities for courses.


Page 25 of 196

matched.

WP1 Develop an 'integration plan' covering the dependencies of deliverables between different WPs and the capabilities of each working prototype.

The project has recognized that the role of WP1 is changing from the development of concept(s) and methodologies towards the workable integration of approaches including data, models and indicators. As a result we have produced a first proposal with detailed specifications for prototype 1 together with a detailed work plan. As the work towards prototype 1 progresses specific linkages will be described and operational solutions developed.

WP1 Develop a more detailed specification of the SEAMLESS-IF that provides examples of the interactions between various components, such as specific models and specific indicators.

A more detailed specification is developed for prototype I, and the project agrees to provide examples of the interactions between various components.

WP1 Initiate development of a business plan for the future of SEAMLESS beyond 2008, including considerations of the adoption environment, user needs, the market position for the SEAMLESS-IF, decision makers at various levels and the messages that need to be conveyed to these decision makers.

Business plan for the future of SEAMLESS: This is considered in the new implementation plan. A possible solution is to start T1.5 earlier, i.e. from 2006 on. This will be a joint concern of WP0, 1 and 7.

WP1 Coordinate activities with WP4 and WP5 to undertake: i) testing of the temporal (time-varying) operation of SEAMLESS-IF, ii) implementation of processes for calibration and validation of 'chains-of-models', iii) testing of prototype social models, and iv) clarification of the interfaces between the various components surrounding the SOFA.

An attempt will be made to perform a social (institutional) analysis for prototype 1. The project plans to initiate an activity (probably in WP1) on model calibration and validation in the new implementation plan. The other points in the evaluation of prototype 1 will be considered as well, and if required initiate specific task forces.

WP1 Examine and borrow from a range of activities that can assist in development and communication of the SEAMLESS-IF.

We will explore the range of activities that can assist in development and communication of the SEAMLESS-IF.

WP2 Relate indicators to the overall cost effectiveness of alternative policy instruments within the CAP reform agenda

Stronger co-operation is proposed between WP2, WP3 and WP6 to define scenarios for test case 2 to make sure that we are able to create indicators related to the cost-effectiveness of alternative policies of the CAP reform. A task force on scenarios for Test case 2 will be established.

WP2 Capture the diversity of indicators and constraints across regions

Differentiate those indicators that are inputs into scenario development and model inputs and those indicators that

It is advised to create through a co-operation between WP 2 and 4 a realistic strategy for data collection to increase the possibilities to capture the diversity and constraints of indicators across regions and how to deal with the partial social and institutional data. To


Page 26 of 196

relate to outputs of the model(s)

Link the social indicators to the modelling approach in WP3

produce sound and innovative indicators in the social area the cooperation between WP 2 and 3 must be increased. A taskforce is proposed on social and institutional data, social models and indicators.

WP2 Increase focus on ‘Research on Gender’, including gender indicators, gender topics in research question of the other WP, appropriate data collection, and adaptations of models

It is also recommended that WP2 will continue to include gender related indicators in our work. WP 4 has to ensure that data is available and WP3 should ensure this aspect is included in some of their models

WP2 Institutional indicators is an important conceptual development but really challenging. Ensure that sufficient science focus is given to this area.

Examine the implementation of direct linkages of social indicators to the policy change or other exogenous changes that affect the agricultural sector in the scenario

WP2 will try to provide working examples for social and institutional indicators (constraints) in the demo version and Prototype 1.

WP3 Undertake validation and post-model analysis of the models used in the development of the two test cases.

There is indeed a need to develop some validation exercises, concerning not only APES, but also FSSIM and CAPRI. This has been done in the past for CAPRI, and we could envisage developing some new activities concerning validation of the different models. Even if ex-post validation is always a very risky business, it will be necessary to undertake this activity.

WP3 Develop a brief but clear strategy to improve coordination of WP3 activities with other WPs, particularly between WP2, WP4 and WP6.

A strategy for stricter collaboration with WP2, 4 and 6 must be developed

WP4 Consider how the data will be made available and managed post SEAMLESS

This is not an issue that can be addressed by WP4 alone as it relies on strategic decisions to be taken for the entire project. The data server presently running at FLD can to some degree be maintained and updated as FLD has the capacity to do so. But, other solutions, such as involving prime users in the updating and maintenance, should also be explored. WP4 will await discussions at higher level before taking concrete actions on this issue.

WP4 Talk to HarmoniRIB for ideas and tools for assessing uncertainty and recording uncertainty in databases

The task of providing tools for checking data quality is not described properly in the DoW. This will be addressed in the new implementation plan by WP4 and WP5. The project is aware of the Data Uncertainty Engine developed in the HarmoniRIB project and will take contact to relevant partners in the project. However, WP4 and WP5 need to discuss at which level to deal with this issue (Each observed value to data set).


Page 27 of 196

WP4 Talk to HarmoniRIB and others about the storage of spatio-temporal data

This recommendation might refer to the decision to store in ascii and grid formats. The decision to store data in ascii format is only for the first phase of the project. It was considered that this was the easiest format for all partners to handle as long as SEAMLESS-IF is not elaborated. Together with WP5 a strategic decision to store the data in PostgreSQL format has been taken, but WP5 will take the final decision on this. The decision to store data in Grid format (standard 1 km grid) only was taken by WP4 to make data handling and the use of data by other WPs and eventually in the SEAMLESS-IF system easy and efficient. Until now we have had no indications from other WPs that there will be a need to store polygon data. Again, contact to external projects should be taken by WP5 and WP4 in collaboration as WP5 is responsible for the database design.

WP4 Put version control in place as soon as practicable

As for the uncertainty issue WP4 and WP5 need to discuss at which level to deal with version control. At the data set level we plan to design a page at the SEAMLESS portal where changes in the data sets on the data server will be recorded. This allows interested partners to receive alerts when changes are made.

WP4 Clarify the objective with respect to creating a typology for farms

The plan is that the farm typology will be used for: 1) Linking market level modelling to farm/field level modelling, 2) Linking farming data to environmental data, 3) Stratified sampling of example regions, 4) Linking statistical sources and expert knowledge, 6) Communicating results and 7) Creating “Open source” data bases. The comment on where in the project the work should be done is no longer valid as the final decisions on the typology have been taken.

WP5 High level concept: The SAB considered that the WP was broadly on track. They were happy with the generic modular approach outlined. It seems important that now the modules are identified, the interfaces are defined. The SAB agreed strongly with the proposal to build specific applications from the generic system. Many users find generic systems and concepts difficult to handle.

The only slight reservation concerned performance.

The building blocks, as well as their interfaces have been defined. A clear interface is defined. It is based on an extension of OpenMI (so-called OpenMI+), and all Application Components will exchange ResourceSets. All software data structures are independent from the Knowledge Base, but their definition and usage can be facilitated by using a Knowledge Manager. The potential risk caused by an incomplete or partially functional Knowledge Base has been addressed, since the data exchange among Application Components do live without depending on the KB.


Page 28 of 196

WP5 The SAB accept the concept of ontologies, indeed they are clearly key to making the system generic. However, experience shows that populating and maintaining ontologies has a low success rate. The ergonomic design of the ontology editor is therefore critically important.

Remark on ontology: It should indeed be seen as a joint WP(2)/3/4 issue as these work packages deal with the content and give context (meaning) to the software. In a metaphorical sense: Ontology is the ‘language’ to describe the knowledge. WP5 include language teachers and sometimes we translate books from one language to another, but WP5 does not provide content. That is a WP2/3/4/6 etc responsibility.

WP5 Level of ambition and user expectation: In collaboration with WP0, WP1 and WP7, reduce the level of ambition and manage user expectations for SEAMLESS-IF and the capabilities of the prototypes.

This user expectation concerns both external and internal users. Also a risk and contingency plan must be prepared. This risk can be partly handled by increasing mutual awareness of the interdependencies across the project (see SAB observations on WP1) and then take mitigation measures from there. This will also serve as a starting point for expectation management.

WP5 Check that documentation is appropriate to the audience

Fully agree. The documentation is not really readable outside WP5. We must reconsider seriously the amount, goal and publication policy of the remaining PDs. We will also need to define documentation guidelines for the technical parts. This can be done in the first half of 2006, when most documentation of the first prototype will be written. Suggestions and inputs from other WPs are important, e.g. WP7.

WP5 Introduce an appropriate level of Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance: Fully agree with this observation. QA is lacking and in WP5 there seems to be a very clear warning to focus on quality assurance.

WP5 Co-located working: There have to be some concerns as to whether software developed in multiple locations will work when it is all brought together. It would be worth discussing with HarmonIT how they addressed this issue.

Co-located working: We will definitely do this, presumably already in January to progress on 18MPROTO.

WP5 Adopt an Open Source license for code and documentation.

We will do this. At this stage, no code is provided outside the project. Maybe this is a good action for after 18MPROTO.

WP6 In collaboration with WP0 and WP1, develop a strategy to avoid a tension between more science-oriented and more user-oriented WPs, particularly to avoid conflicting goals in parallel work activities

It is proposed WP6 will create, under the supervision of WP1, task forces around each tool/method with scientists for WP6 and each WP and coordinate the management and plan the scientific valuation inside each task force.

WP6 Clearly define the needs of WP6 in terms of input for the test cases

The inputs from each WP are tools, methods or data which are components of SEAMLESS-IF and not specific requests of WP6. The role of WP1 is crucial here to define a common view on SEAMLESS-IF and ensure coordination around each prototype


Page 29 of 196

WP6 Define the role of WP6 concerning the responsibility for the ‘quality control’ (e.g. feasibility of indicators, usefulness of the models)

The quality control should be considered as included in the evaluation of each tool (task 6.4) and proposals for improvements (Task 6.5) will be made to the corresponding WP. The interaction in this process should be easy and permanent inside the task forces proposed above. The detailed definition of criteria and methods for the evaluation of each tools still need to be made and a specific activity is proposed for this in the next 18 months implementation plan.

WP6 Widen the scope of the test case scenarios to include ecological and social aspects

Test case 1 will include the assessment of the impact of policy on ecological and social aspects but this will be through the indicators and not included in the scenario. Test case 2 will add another ecological dimension inside the policy scenario which will be based on environmentally targeted policies and technological innovations. It is true that social aspects have not yet been elaborated enough in the indicator framework and in its connection with the models. But WP6 anticipates to be able to test the social indicators (via partnerships within and beyond SEAMLESS), but mainly at regional level.

WP6 Relate test case scenarios more to current relevant questions such as cross compliance and the second pillar

These aspects of EU policies were not intended to be tested in the first prototype and they will not be for practical reasons. But they are planned to be included in Prototype 2 which will be tested both on Test case 1 and 2. The same approach as for the premium scheme in the CAP will be used: policies already planned and defined by EU will be in the Reference Scenario and the rest will be used to build the policy scenario.

WP7 Produce an updated dissemination plan that identifies specific user organisations across a range of international and national levels, identifies the users types within these organisations, and provides a plan for the dissemination activities that are specific to the user types.

This recommendation is really something that we already have planned. It seems correct to stress the need for clarifying what we mean by: users, end users, prime users, user organisations, user categories etc. In the New implementation plan we will update and broaden the range of user organisations.

WP7 In coordination with WP0, build a range of dissemination material (publications, presentations) that relates to the 'real world' adoption environment of intended users, avoids jargon, conveys a simple message through graphics and text, and which reflects appropriate gender aspects in both the SEAMLESS research and the adoption environment

This recommendation is part of the original plan.


Page 30 of 196

2.3 Objectives, work performed, contractors involved, problems and corrective measures

The work in SEAMLESS is organised in Work Packages, Tasks (within WPs) and Activities (within Tasks). This section reports the main issues per WP; Section 3 provides details at Task and Activity level. Activities result in deliverables: PDx.x.x or Dx.x.x (sometimes with an extra digit to indicate versions); PDs are project deliverables and internal only, whereas Ds are submitted to the EC. Both PDs and Ds are evaluated internally before approval by the SEAMLESS Board.

The sections below summarize the objectives, progress, problems and corrective measures in 2005 per Work Package. We refer to completed deliverables (either PDs or Ds) for further reference.

2.3.1 WP1 - Conceptual and methodological design and integration of SEAMLESS-IF

Objectives 2005

The main objectives of WP1 during year 2005 were:

• Identification and specification of agricultural system(s) addressed within SEAMLESS-IF. This includes the determination of the general bio-physical and economic boundaries, socio-cultural issues and elements that are of primary importance for the development of SEAMLESS-IF (Task 1.2).

• Development of a theoretical and methodological basis required for flexible conceptualization of agricultural systems and associated model and tool development within SEAMLESS-IF (Task 1.2).

• To determine the user requirements (Task 1.2).

• To integrate the methodological approaches developed in all other WPs into SEAMLESS-IF (Task 1.3):

o Determination of the attributes of SEAMLESS-IF and definition and selection of qualitative and quantitative indicators and threshold values.

o Specification and selection of quantitative models of SEAMLESS-IF and development and selection of procedures for up- and downscaling.

o Specification and selection of databases of SEAMLESS-IF in interaction with WP4.

o Development of a concept of SeamFrame to link model components and databases and to provide integration and optimisation algorithms and procedures for data handling and spatial representation, quality control, output visualisation and documentation.

o Specification of a procedure for application of SEAMLESS-IF to concrete policy and innovation issues.

o Specification of complementary participatory methods for using SEAMLESS-IF.

• To start with the development of a Demo Version that shows all features of SEAMLESS-IF but in a non-operational fashion (Task 1.3).


Page 31 of 196

• To start with the sound integration of activities from other WPs for the development of the Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF (Task 1.4).

Progress

The main work performed and the main achievements of WP1 in year 2005 were:

• To facilitate cross-disciplinary and cross-team work a Project Glossary has been developed. Important terms used in each of disciplines have been entered using a Wiki-based Glossary accessible through the SEAMLESS portal. Each of the deliverables (PDs and Ds) also contains a Glossary, and as soon as a (P)D is completed the Glossary is added to the Project Glossary. A hardcopy of the Project Glossary is available in the package; the digital version is on the CD.

• A report (PD1.2.1) that reviews basic concepts of systems analysis, sustainability and sustainable development and integrated assessment and proposes a conceptual model and procedure for integrated analysis and assessment of agricultural systems in SEAMLESS-IF.

• A report (PD1.2.2) that contains a first outline of which organisations engaged in European policy making are likely to become users of the SEAMLESS-IF. Information from users refer to the extent they use modelling today, the issues in agriculture and sustainability that they assume to be the most important on the EU agenda in the years ahead, and their requirements for a useful modelling tool.

• The main part of the activities to build the conceptual basis, to develop and to integrate the methodological approaches, has been completed and the results are summarized in a series of reports (all these reports are available, though PD1.3.2 and PD1.3.3 only as drafts):

o Attributes of the system for which indicators and threshold values are developed (PD1.3.1), combined with: Specifying indicators and methods for qualitative pre and post-model analysis (PD1.3.5);

o Quantitative models of SEAMLESS-IF and procedures for up- and downscaling (PD1.3.2)

o Specification of databases of SEAMLESS-IF (PD1.3.3)

o The conceptual design of SeamFrame (PD1.3.4)

o A procedure for application of SEAMLESS-IF to concrete policy and innovation issues (PD1.3.6)

o Complementary participatory methods for SEAMLESS-IF (PD1.3.7)

• This initial set of methodologies and concepts is now available and will form the basis for the summary report on methodologies (PD1.3.8), the Demo Version (D1.3.9) and Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF. D1.3.9 is available; PD1.3.8 is delayed because of delays in completion of PD1.3.1+5; PD1.3.2 and PD1.3.3.

• Specifications for the first prototype have been clarified:

The described and modelled system consists of the arable sector only, spatially EU25, with a level of spatial detail of both farm type and territorial type, temporal extend until 2012, and temporal detail of one year steps. Other specifications are related to (1) Indicators (selected biophysical, economic and social indicators provided at farm, regional and EU level), (2) Model linkages and post model analysis (simple linkage rules,


Page 32 of 196

demonstration of initial visualisation options of output, etc.), (3) Technical frame (Graphical User Interface with indication of functionality; concept for knowledge base/ontology, SOFA with knowledge manager, model manager, tool manager and module manager), modelling environment (infrastructure for building, retrieving and editing agro-environmental models), processing environment (OpenMI architecture to perform operations implemented by the tools), (4) Models (APES, FSSIM with PEG, PTG, current activities and MP model, SEAMCAP, SEAM:REF, SEAM:LINK which is the user interface of processing environment, SEAM:GAMS (OpenMI compliant version to deliver GAMS models), SEAM:MOD (idem for MODCOM) and linkage model between FSSIM and CAPRI), and (5) Data bases (with farm typology, farm type allocation, territorial typology, and environmental, social and economic data). This prototype in principle should allow assessment of trade liberalization on EU agriculture and sustainability aspects with (1) no change in WTO (baseline scenario) and (2) change in WTO (policy scenario), full implementation (i.e. cuts in import tariffs, elimination in export subsidies). Given the prototype nature, emphasis is on the methodological links and principles rather than on the results of the tools.

Contractors

WU (Leader), ALTERRA, CEMAGREF, CRA, FLD, IAMM, IDSIA, INRA, LEI, LU, NLH, UBER, UBONN

Problems and corrective measures

The main problems were:

• Lack of common understanding on conceptual model for SEAMLESS-IF during first months of 2005.

• Some activities related to indicator, model and data specifications have been largely delayed (3-4 months), which in turn caused a delay on the integration of the methodology; all PDs are now available, apart from the integration (PD1.3.8).

• In the case of model specification and selection, the related activity has been over-budgeted.

• Some critical issues related to scenario development, procedures for up-and downscaling and for model calibration and validation were not considered and/or completed and need specific attention in the future.

• Overall the amount of communication needed in this WP turned out to be very high, and sometimes efficiency was not high enough, probably because of many persons involved and often these persons are senior and engaged in many issues within and beyond this project.

The main corrective actions were:

• Additional workshop (Den Haag, 21-22 March 2005) to reach common understanding on conceptual model for SEAMLESS-IF (results see PD1.2.1).

• Despite the delay of some of the reports at the basis of the integration work (PD1.3.8 and D1.3.9), delay of this integration work has been kept to a minimum by concentrating on features of the Prototype 1, rather than on methodology of the final SEAMLESS-IF. This


Page 33 of 196

was possible because of extra efforts of WP1 in assembling ideas from email exchanges, presentations and versions of the Animated Narrative Demo.

• Activities that were not well budgeted or largely delayed (see above) or that were missing (scenario development, calibration and validation) in the original DoW, will be readjusted or introduced, respectively, in the New implementation plan.

• From now on the number of persons involved in WP1 work will be lower (WP-leaders only) and WP1 will target more on scientists working for most of their time on SEAMLESS (incl. post-docs or PhDs). This implies that conclusions of WP1 must be communicated very effectively via the portal, PDs and at workshops to reach all participants.

2.3.2 WP2 – Indicators and threshold value for integrated sustainability assessment at multiple scales

Objectives 2005


• To specify methodologies and data requirements (either from surveys or models) for constructing and evaluating thematic indicators of sustainability of agricultural systems and contributions of agricultural systems to sustainable development (Task 2.2).

• To develop ‘multifunctionality’ indicators for evaluating the degree to which farming systems exhibit multifunctional characteristics and how this contributes to economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability (Task 2.3).

• To develop indicators for characterising policy delivery systems and institutional environments (Task 2.4).

• To start development of a methodology for assessing thresholds, critical ranges and targets of indicators (Task 2.5).

• To start development of a methodology for assessing multiple indicators and their comparison (Task 2.6).

Progress


• Review of research in the area of indicators of sustainability particularly in association with agriculture (PD2.2.1). The result of this report is used as the basis for the development of indicator frameworks to be used in SEAMLESS. Through its thorough and comprehensive assessment of previous indicator initiatives it also serves as a “library” for the future work of the WP.

• Report on gaps for which new indicators ought to be developed (PD2.2.2). This report gives the WP information about where and why indicators have not been developed in certain areas. This will help the WP to build up strategies for developing indicators in these gap areas.

• Although the DoW did not pay specific attention to it, both PD2.2.1 and PD2.2.2 paid significant attention to so-called indicator frameworks. Both PDs serve as a thorough basis for the future development of such framework. An indicator framework which is open and generic is regarded as important for SEAMLESS-IF to provide the flexibility to


Page 34 of 196

easily identify new relevant indicators when new issues arise; it must guide users and stakeholders in identification of indicators.

• Report on results from EU FP6 Specific Support Action Multagri (http://www.multagri.net) and other information with respect to multifunctionality of agriculture, and multifunctionality indicators and its relevance for SEAMLESS-IF (PD2.3.1). This report summarises the development of a relatively new research area and gives the basis for where the future development of indicators of multifunctionality should start. It also gives the WP ideas on which linkages between different aspects of agriculture that so far have been identified as important. This information will serve as a basis for the future work on aggregation of indicators.

• Report on approaches and methodologies used for assessing compatibility of policies and institutional compatibility (PD2.4.1). It proposes the PICA assessment methodology (Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment). The report serves as a basis for the future development of this methodology as well as giving ideas on how institutional assessments may be applied in SEAMLESS-IF. Work on elaboration and implementation of PICA and its application in prototypes of SEAMLESS-IF has started, but is still in an early stage.

• Draft report reviewing approaches available for setting and evaluating thresholds, critical ranges and targets for indicators – not completed yet. This report reviews existing research on reference, target levels and thresholds. It will create a strategy and basis for how reference, target levels and threshold can be assessed and developed for indicators relevant for SEAMLESS.

• Report on the needs of stakeholders with respect to assessment of indicators (multi-criteria approach) (PD2.6.1). This report serves as a ground for which issues it could be important to consult with stakeholders in relation to indicator assessment and development. It will serve as a basis for the interaction with stakeholders in WP6.

Contractors

LU (replaced VUZE as WP2 leader), INRA (co-leader), CEMAGREF, CIRAD, LEI, SGGW, UBER, UEVORA, UNEW, UNIABDN, VUZE


The main problems and corrective measures in 2005 were:

• WP2 suffered from two early changes in its leadership: Dr Tomas Ratinger (VUZE, leader of WP2) left his position in March (after being ill during the Kick-off meeting in Lund) and moved to a position in Spain, and the co-leader Dr Daniel Auclair resigned in July 2005. After a thorough search procedure with interviews, the Board decided to appoint Dr. Johanna Alkan Olsson (LU) as new leader (from April onwards) and Dr. Christian Bockstaller (INRA) as new co-leader (from September onwards). Thanks to an effective management of the new leader of WP2, most of the delays associated to these changes and underperformance of some partners have been overcome by December 2005. Although all due PDs in 2005 were delayed, they have been submitted now all and are part of the package submitted with this Annual Report.

• WP2 also suffered from a ‘scattered’ partnership. Many partners in WP2 are relatively small and have no or minor roles in other WPs. This requires an extra effort in terms of


Page 35 of 196

integration. Both the (new) leader of WP2 and WP0 have invested in this integration through (many) meetings, email exchanges and thorough reviews of the PDs.

• The tendency of WP2 to work with less integration in SEAMLESS is illustrated by the nature of most of the work in WP2 in 2005: most of the PDs have a strong literature review component. This has resulted in very valuable scientific reviews. Literature on indicators and indicator frameworks is abundant and a clear own agenda is required to make the proper synthesis and plan the proper additional work; this own agenda of WP2 in terms of its role in SEAMLESS-IF still requires attention.

• Yet, the fact that delays have been overcome, literature has been reviewed in a series of very solid PDs and leadership of WP2 is now fully focusing on integration and contribution of WP2 to Prototype 1, with clear examples and small initial steps, provides a good basis to proceed in 2006. This integrative activity (part of Task 2.1) is delayed by ca. 2 months.

• Work on institutional constraints and social indicators related to polices targeted at sustainability and sustainable development is innovative; data availability may be as obstacle in several instances.

• The changes in leadership and composition of the team of VUZE have brought about changes in resource allocation from VUZE to LU, UBER, UEVORA and UNIABDN.

• Some more changes in resource allocation are proposed in the New implementation plan, due to better definition of the workplan, performance of some partners and focus on integration.

2.3.3 WP3 – Quantitative tools and models for integrated sustainability impact assessment at multiple scales

Objectives


• To start development of a modular system for Agricultural Production and Externalities Simulation (APES). APES will comprise a set of model components to simulate specific domains of agricultural production. To develop an initial set of model components and applications for APES for the following domains of agricultural production: Enterprises (crops, grasses, orchards, vineyards, agroforestry), Environment (weather, soil water, soil carbon and nitrogen, soil erosion, pesticides), and Production Technique (agricultural management). Focus was on components relevant for Prototype 1: weather, crops soil, agricultural management. (Task 3.2).

• To develop a generic bio-economic farm model (FSSIM) for arable farming systems in the EU25; much of the same template can be used for other farming systems in the EU25. FSSIM consists of data module (FSSIM-DM) and a mathematical programming model (FSSIM-MP). (Task 3.3).

• To embed components in SEAMLESS-IF relating to the market mechanism for agricultural products, i.e. the interplay of demand, supply and prices; the first choice of market model within SEAMLESS-IF is the CAPRI model. (Task 3.5).

• To develop a method for mapping the supply behaviour of FSSIM to CAPRI and provide simulated prices to FSSIM. (Task 3.6).


Page 36 of 196

• To develop a methodology and model components for endogenous aggregation weights from farm types to the market scale. (Task 3.6).

• To develop a method for analysis of environmental and landscape issues at territorial scale (e.g. NUTS2 or NUTS3 level). (Task 3.7).

• To provide a methodology for analysis of effects of EU policies on competitiveness and developing countries. (Task 3.8).

• To develop labour indicators for insertion into the market model of SEAMLESS-IF, i.e. CAPRI. (Task 3.9).

Progress

In 2005, focus was on defining methodologies and developing initial model components for simulation at different scales and of different processes (for the modelling framework applied within SEAMLESS-IF, see Figure 2.2); Main models are:

• (a) APES, the Agricultural Production and Externalities Simulator is a modular simulation model estimating the biophysical processes of agricultural production systems, at point level, in response to weather and different options of agro-technical management. The processes are simulated in APES with deterministic approaches mostly based on mechanistic representations of biophysical processes. This is done for a variety of regional specific climatic conditions and soils. The criteria to select modelling approaches will be based on the need of: 1) accounting for specific processes to simulate soil-land use interactions, 2) input data to run simulations, 3) simulation of agricultural production activities and their management of interest. APES will compute the yields, as well as several inputs and externalities of crop rotations; both averages and variability across years will be generated; (b) FSSIM, the Farm System Simulator (FSSIM) is a bio-economic farm model developed to quantify the integrated agricultural, environmental and socio-economic aspects of farming systems. Applied at farm (micro) level, FSSIM seeks to represent the actual farmers’ behaviour using the knowledge of technical and socioeconomic constraints, the relation between production factors, the amount of output obtained and the costs of each production activity (= growth of a crop rotation or livestock system) and future market prices. The principal characteristic of this type of models is the application of engineering production functions, partly derived from APES. FSSIM also uses information from statistical data bases (costs, labour, machine requirement) and expert knowledge; (c) CAPRI is an Agricultural Sector Model of the European Union developed by the Univ. of Bonn. It is a comparative static equilibrium model, solved by iterating supply and market modules. CAPRI has a supply module that consists of supply models at different scales, from farm to the European level. These are non-linear programming models allowing direct implementation of most policy measures with highly differentiated sets of activities. Allocation is based on profit maximising behaviour and estimated multi-product cost functions. CAPRI also estimates nutrient balances and gas emissions with global warming potential using a matrix of coefficients linked with the levels of the activities. The CAPRI market module makes prices and quantities consistent given the supply module (above) and the demand/import-export module. In SEAMLESS the Global Spatial Multi-Commodity Model will be used. It consists of 18 trade blocks (EU15, EU10, Norway, Bulgaria & Romania, Rest of Europe, USA, Australia & New Zealand, Least Developed Countries, etc.);


Page 37 of 196

Figure 2.2 Schematic representation of the models, tools, data bases and data flows in SEAMLESS-IF

(d) GTAP is a global trade model and a global database of production and trade, used by some 200 agencies and research groups for the evaluation of policies (e.g., US Department of Agriculture, Worldbank, Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, LEI). It is based on a consortium of 18 research groups across the world and is periodically updated. GTAP has been chosen as a tool to support the investigation of strategies for the sustainable management of natural resources in agriculture, because liberalisation of agricultural trade has major implications for structural shifts in the economy and natural resource use. In SEAMLESS, it will be used for analysing the impacts of European Policies on the rest of the World, particularly on developing countries. Territorial models FSSIM will provide estimates for changes in acreage for various types of production of the main categories of farm types in the EU25, as well as information on their choice of agronomic practices (fertilisation, pesticide use, water use, etc.). By using knowledge rules on the location of farm types in landscapes (see the section on pan-European data) we aim making the results of the farm models spatially explicit. This would then allow assessment of environmental, biodiversity and visual quality of the landscape, under alternative policy scenarios. (e) Developing Country Models, as the effects of European Policies on developing countries are of particular concern in SEAMLESS. To capture the effects of changing prices in (selected) developing countries a CGE model with macro-micro linkages for households will be developed to allow for poverty analysis and analysis of impacts on rural versus urban areas. Changes in cropping patterns and acreage shares in the developing countries may have two types of impacts: first, staple crops or cash crops that are important domestically may be produced at lower quantities and experience price increases. This could have undesirable impacts, especially for the poor; second, increased cultivation of certain (export) crops may result in more monocultures being grown. This may increase the risk of soil mining, and loss of soil productivity after some years; (f) Territorial models to assess environmental, landscape quality and biodiversity effects of changes in agriculture at landscape or territorial level. These models use results from FSSIM and the procedure developed in WP4 for spatial allocation of farm types via associations to climate, soil type and land cover types; (g) Rural employment model: an econometric model for assessing rural employment and gender impacts; (h) Linkages between models,


Page 38 of 196

as the different methods and specifications used in the principal models create the need of ”intermediate models” for allowing the linkages that are more complex than simple aggregation.

• For the proper understanding of upscaling methods in WP3, it is important to note the following: upscaling of FSSIM results to CAPRI (EU25) will be done by running FSSIM for farm types of a sample of NUTS2 regions; all NUTS2 would be infeasible given the number of NUTS2 regions (254) and farm types. In Prototype 1 we use only 4 sample regions (Flevoland-NL; Brandenburg-GE; Midi Pyrenees-FR and Andalucia-SP as a proof of principle; in the full version of SEAMLESS-IF we propose ca. 25 NUTS2 regions. FSSIM will be run with a modest level of detail in number of activities (=enterprises x production techniques). In addition methods coming from Task 3.7 will allow more detailed, spatial, assessments of environmental, biodiversity and landscape issues. These methods use a more detailed version of FSSIM and are more data-intensive; these data will certainly not be available at EU25 level. These methods will primarily be tested for 4 Test Case regions with WP6 (Midi-Pyrenees and Central Massif in France, Pyrzyce region in Poland, and a region in Mali).

• Priority in 2005 for APES-Task3.2 was on: crops, weather, soil water and soil carbon and nitrogen, as these are indispensable for Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF. First versions of all components planned (except Pesticides and Agroforestry) are indeed available. First versions of the following PDs are available: PD3.2.1; PD3.2.2; PD3.2.3; PD3.2.4; PD3.2.6; PD3.2.12 (all unrevised).

• A review of bio-economic models has been produced (PD3.3.1), which provided input to the template of FSSIM-MP (MP=Mathematical Programming model), as documented in PD3.3.2 and implemented in GAMS. The first model version (to be used in Prototype 1) is a static version. A procedure and corresponding tool for assessing current activities (practised by farmers today) is currently in progress, and uses FADN data complemented by an expert knowledge survey. Generators for alternative activities (on-the-shelf, in-the-pipeline, but not widely practised by farmers today) have been designed and already partly implemented in Java and integrated in SeamFrame. Generators for current and alternative activities together are named FSSIM-DM (DM=Data Module). All tools are linked via the Knowledge base (incl. linkage to APES) and are considered stand-alone tools. All components of FSSIM are scheduled to be working in January 2006 and will be integrated for some farm types in Flevoland. A draft version of PD3.3.3-5 is available and added to the package of the Annual Report. The content of PD3.4.1 has been added to PD1.3.2.

• Fitting CAPRI into SEAMLESS-IF: CAPRI is initially integrated in SeamFrame. A scenario editor is currently being developed. Modelling work has been carried out in order to implement a farm type layer in the model for further linkages with FSSIM and the structural change estimation approach. Work has started on modules to facilitate easier interpretation of market level model results: All exploitation tools from CAPRI (XML editor, JAVA maps and SVG Graphics) have been made available for WP5 and will flow into SeamFrame. For the purpose of the project, some user-friendly features have been added. PD3.5.1 and PD3.5.2.1 describe the CAPRI system.

• The methodology envisaged to map the supply behaviour of FSSIM models to CAPRI comprises the following sequence of steps: (1) Simulation of FSSIM supply response to price variations to obtain price-quantity data set; (2) Estimation of an econometric Meta-model explaining supply response based on explanatory variables, which determine FSSIM supply response, but are also available for the whole EU. (3) Use of this Meta-model to extrapolate supply response to other farm types and regions. (4) Aggregation of supply response to NUTS2 level based on aggregation weights. (5) Calibration of


Page 39 of 196

regional supply modules in CAPRI to aggregated supply response. A first version of estimation routines for extrapolating the supply behaviour of FSSIM models to out-of-sample models is tested on preliminary FSSIM data. PD3.6.1 and PD1.3.2 describe the methodological principles. PD3.6.2 describes the common product list of FSSIM and CAPRI.

• Several approaches for endogenous aggregation weights from farm types to market scale, are being investigated. The Markov chain analysis already identified in the DoW as the likely most suitable approach for SEAMLESS purposes, is the most widely applied approach to model structural change. The Markov chain analysis is applicable to the EU-15 given the FADN data availability. However, compared to rather focussed applications in the literature (regionally and with respect to specific farm types), the task is very ambitious, but a successful large scale cross-sectional analysis would also be of high scientific value. For the new member states, data availability does not seem to allow statistical analysis. An alternative approach (either transferring results from EU-15 or using simplified agent based approaches) needs to be identified. (PD3.6.6.1)

• The work on detailed environmental and landscape assessment at territorial level got a stimulus through the fact that it seems possible to make the farm types spatially explicit through a collaboration with the Dynaspat project (see WP4). This enables a smooth linkage between the work on FSSIM and this specific Task 3.7. Clarification of the methods to be used in Task 3.7 is still in the very early phase and needs more work. Section 3, Task 3.7, provides preliminary details.

• An initial description of the proposed methodology for assessing interaction between EU policies and international competition and developing countries has been described in D3.8.1. The essence of the proposed methods is: to link CAPRI and GTAP and to introduce developing country features in GTAP; to develop country CGE models for developing countries and to establish a link between the national level CGE model and GTAP, and to establish a link between the national level CGE model and developing country versions of FSSIM.

• FADN data have been analyzed econometrically to develop labour indicators for insertion into the CAPRI model.

Contractors

IAMM (WP-leader), CRA (co-leader), NLH (co-leader), ALTERRA, CIRAD, INRA, LEI, NUI Galway, PRI, UBONN, UEDIN, UNIABDN, WU, ZALF


The main problems and corrective measures in 2005 were:

• The issues below cannot change the overall picture that much has been achieved in the initial year in the most challenging WP of the project. In most Tasks the methodologies have been clarified and first deliverables have been completed.

• The work in Task 3.2 is delayed by about four months, on the average; delays refer to both the science in the components and the software implementation. Reasons for the delay are the following: (1) Late recruitment of personnel; (2) Under evaluation, by some teams, of the effort and expertise required; (3) Cascading effect of WP5 actions/delays; (4) Too soft” management of the task in the first 5-6 months; putting pressure to participants in a more stringent way should have been done from the beginning.


Page 40 of 196

Obviously, the nature of working ‘modular’ (i.e., standalone components which interface with other components through well-defined inputs and outputs) and SeamFrame software requirements are both innovative and not trivial to most persons working in this task. Focus is now on components essential for Prototype 1, and to show the feasibility and power of the modular approach, which should stimulate the work on other components. The work of Task 3.2 will incorporate the following new actions: (1) Downscaling of ambition for Prototype 1 in order to meet the deadline; (2) Training via internet, via a course (March 2006), and via workshops; (3) Development of a monthly newsletter to foster the exchange of information/summaries about teams activity http://www.isci.it/apeswiki/pmwiki.php; https://portal.wur.nl/sites/seamless/WP3/Newsletters/Forms/AllItems.aspx

• The work on farm household modelling (FSSIM) is generally on schedule, though fragile because different partners working on different components. The identification of current activities was added as a separate activity. Some precious time was lost because FADN data, which are at the basis of the farm typology, were not available on time (an agreement on its use with DG-Agriculture was delayed). All FSSIM components are currently integrated, but it is, as yet, unclear how well the full integration will work out. Because of the many partners and highly conceptual and methodological work, the Task works with relatively small, incremental steps and tight deadlines. The work of Task 3.4 (application of FSSIM = FARM-INT in the DoW) has been merged with Task 3.3 (actually already in March 2005) and led by one task leader, as this is deemed more consistent with the organisation of other Tasks in WP3. Moreover, development of tools must go hand in hand with applications. From now on we only use the acronym FSSIM and drop FARM-INT.

• The work on CAPRI integration is primarily a software task and it is proposed to move this work to WP5 in the new implementation plan. The work is on schedule.

• The work on micro-macro (FSSIM-CAPRI) linkage is really innovative and feasibility and results of proposed methods have to be tested. The numbers of FSSIM runs (and even more the corresponding runs of the activity generators and APES) are enormous and may form a bottleneck. A fall back option may be the use of the CAPRI farm type module which exhaustively models farm types in all EU NUTS2 regions, explicitly differentiating 5-10 farm types per NUTS2 region with large relative importance and one residual category. In this case, a methodology for the specification of CAPRI farm activities based on APES and FSSIM-DM has to be developed.

• The work on structural change (also Task3.6) is without relevance for Prototype 1. The methodological literature review is completed. It revealed that the potential of currently available statistical methodologies to model structural change (mainly Markov chain analysis) is limited with respect to explanatory power. Nothing remotely similar in scope to what is envisaged in this task has been done in the past which does not allow a good estimate on the likelihood of success. A fall back position in this respect are multivariate restricted trend estimates for number of farms per type. Limited data availability in new member states requires the search for approaches extrapolating results from EU15, the investigation of simulation models (agent based) or stylized variants thereof. Time series analysis in EU15 is delayed due to data access problems, but this should be solved soon.

• The work in Task 3.7 (Territorial models) is not critical to Prototype 1, but ca. 3 months behind schedule, due to late recruitment of personnel and underinvestment of some partners. The definition and implementation of methodology for territorial modelling will get high priority in 2006.

• The work in Task 3.8 (i.e. Developing country features and competitiveness to be included in the global modelling) is behind schedule (ca. 3 months). The delay has mainly been caused by a broad definition of this task in the original proposal and by


Page 41 of 196

unclear leadership. During the 2nd half of 2005 the situation has improved and a deliverable (D3.8.1) now describes the overall methodological approach. There is a need to establish links to GTAP with respect to both the methodological part as well as data usage. LEI is leader of this task and the GTAP consortium, and will play an important role here. The PDs 3.8.2 and 3.8.3 (due month 12) have been delayed, but their content will be incorporated into a broader deliverable due month 21 and the delay is not expected to have any consequences for Prototype 2.

Some overall WP3 problems and corrective measures:

• WP3 is a very large and diverse Work Package: it accounts for ca. 25% of the budget with more than 60 scientists involved, covers all hierarchical scales and many disciplines. The modelling work is innovative in terms of linkages between scales and disciplines and in terms of software design and implementation. It was concluded in the Board meeting in November 2005 that the current leadership with 3 persons is not sufficiently effective in terms of leadership and communication and that a strengthening is needed; this is proposed in the New implementation plan and will take effect in January 2006. Changes in leadership of WP3 have some budgetary consequences in WP0, 1 and 3, as detailed in the New implementation plan.

• WP3 has many PD/Ds, according to the DoW. Some are not available yet and delayed with 2-6 months. This is partly due to delays (see above), but in some cases the originally planned deliverables do not nicely match the current thinking about methodology anymore (e.g. Task 3.6). For reasons of informing participants in WP3 and other WPs and for integration purposes the deliverables seem very fragmented to obtain overview. The definition of deliverables will be reconsidered in the New implementation plan. PD1.3.2 serves an important purpose to provide the WP3 overview, but it has been much delayed and a version is available only since January 2006.

• In some cases partners were not able to deliver; these cases have been carefully assessed in the New implementation plan. Tight new deadlines with contingency plans have been agreed and in a few cases resources will be re-allocated.

2.3.4 WP4 - Databases for integrated sustainability impact assessment at multiple scales

Objectives


• Populating the SEAMLESS knowledge base with data and metadata (Task 4.2).

• To collect environmental data at EU-25 level and to adapt these to SEAMLESS knowledge base (Task 4.3).

• To collect farming system data at EU-25 level and to adapt them to SEAMLESS knowledge base (Task 4.4).

• To define and test a typology of farming systems and a regional typology (Task 4.4).

• To collect rural socio-economic data at EU-25 level and to adapt these to SEAMLESS knowledge base (Task 4.5).

• To define and develop databases for the global level (Task 4.6).

• To develop protocols for spatial analysis and for up- and down-scaling of spatial and statistical information and model outputs (Task 4.7).


Page 42 of 196

Progress


• Guidelines for populating the first version of the knowledge base are available (PD4.2.1).

• The environmental databases that will be included in Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF have been identified based on a consultation with other WPs. The datasets selected for the first prototype have been described in metadata (PD4.3.1). All data will be normalized to a standard 1 x 1 km grid. App. 80% of the datasets has also been made available through the web server at FLD. This includes land cover data, climate data, soil data and data on an environmental classification.

• The databases with farming data that will be included in Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF have been identified based on a consultation with other WPs (PD4.4.1). This includes the FADN data only. Since late November an agreement with DG-Agriculture is in place for use of 2003 data in SEAMLESS; we are currently negotiating the use of a time series: 1990-2003, which is essential for the project. For the first extraction of data a set of variables has been chosen. This data set has been made available on the web server at FLD, respecting the contractual arrangements made with DG-Agriculture.

• The typology of farming systems has been agreed upon. The typology is based on work on previous projects like ELPEN (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/ka5/en/projects/qlrt_1999_01296_en.htm) and IRENA.( http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/148.html ). The typology includes discriminating variables on: (1) Size (measured in European size units); (2) Intensity, (measured in output/ha); (3) Specialization and land use (defined by EU-typology and land use) (PD4.4.2).

• The rural socio-economic databases that will be included in Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF have been identified based on a consultation with other WPs. The datasets selected for Prototype 1 have been described in metadata (PD4.5.1).

• The databases for the global level that will be included in Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF have been identified based on a consultation with other WPs. The datasets selected for the first prototype have been described in metadata (PD4.6.1). The GTAP data set has been assembled, but is not yet on the data server; details on use and dissemination of GTAP data need to be negotiated with the GTAP consortium.

Contractors

FLD (leader), ALTERRA (co-leader), IDSIA, JRC, LEI, LU, UBONN, UVM, WU, ZALF.


The main problems and corrective measures were:

• It is not quite clear if the delivered metadata for both, the environmental datasets, the rural socio-economic datasets, and the farming system datasets completely comply with what is needed in the SEAMLESS-IF. In general it has proven to be difficult to obtain clear answers from WP2 and WP3 with respect to precise definition of their data requirements. This implies that data requirements will be defined in several iterations.

• Farm management data have been poorly specified in the DoW-WP4 and also responsibilities were not clear. We will specify in the new implementation plan which


Page 43 of 196

detailed farm management data on current and alternative activities (Task 3.3) will be collected and by whom.

• A formal agreement with DG-Agriculture for use of FADN data was delayed and consequently delayed the work on creating and testing the farm typologies, which provides essential input to WP3 (Task 3.3 and 3.6). An agreement for use of one year (2003) is now available, but this needs to be extended to a time series (1990-2003). We are currently negotiating this. Also, only two partners (LEI and UBONN) will be allowed to use individual FADN data. Within these partners few persons can actually handle FADN data, which makes this a vulnerable point in the workflow; this is currently receiving attention.

• For the regional typologies it can be envisaged that policy question specific typologies have to be elaborated as the project proceeds. We will specify in the new implementation plan how regional data on policy implementation can be collected.

• It can be foreseen that for the datasets at the global level further metadata descriptions have to be elaborated as the project continues and new datasets will be included. Also it is not quite clear if the delivered metadata completely comply with what is needed in the SEAMLESS-IF. We will have to negotiate use of GTAP data with the GTAP consortium.

• The work in Task 4.7 (Protocols for spatial analysis) is delayed, particularly because of interdependency of the work with WP5 and because of availability of FADN data to start the spatial allocation of farm types. Also the chosen approach is much more comprehensive than the approach originally planned, as only after the start of SEAMLESS we became aware of the Dynaspat land use allocation approach. This approach allows to spatially allocate the farm types more precisely. We will specify in the new implementation plan the exact responsibilities and related resource needs for the final work on allocation of farm types.

• A cross-WP taskforce has been established to clarify the adaptation of data and metadata (both environmental, rural socio-economic and farming system data) to the SEAMLESS knowledge base.

• Overall Tasks 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.7 are delayed by 2-3 months; PDs from these Tasks are now scheduled for month 14-15.

• The following PDs are delayed and will be completed in February-March 2006: PD4.3.2; PD4.3.3; PD4.4.3; PD4.5.2; PD4.7.1.

2.3.5 WP5 – SeamFrame software: architecture and implementation

Objectives


• Analysis of requirements as a basis for software development for SeamFrame (Task 5.2).

• Design of overall architecture of SeamFrame, layout for integration of the sub-parts (Task 5.3).

• Design of domain editor; specification of ontologies for data representation (Task 5.3).

• Design of model builder; specification of model ontologies, including the model interfaces (Task 5.3).


Page 44 of 196

• Design of the processing tools; design of simulation, calibration, data analysis algorithms; design of the interface between SeamFrame and GAMS (Task 5.3).

• Design of the modelling environment; design of the GUI for model management (Task 5.3).

• Design of the processing environment; design of the workflow management system (Task 5.3).

• Design of SeamFrame applications as instances of workflows; design of their user interface (Task 5.3).

• Implementation of modelling environment, delivering a prototype at month 14 (Task 5.4).

• Implementation of the component toolbox (domain editor, model builder, processing tools), delivering a prototype at month 14 (Task 5.4).

• Implementation of the first prototype of the processing environment at month 16 (Task 5.4).

• Bringing all components together in dedicated SeamFrame applications, fit to perform a specified task (Task 5.4).

Progress


• For analysis of requirements of SeamFrame, progress and approach were communicated during meetings in order to start getting feedback. Different user classes are discriminated for SeamFrame, i.e., coders, linkers, providers, runners, players, viewers. Two PDs reported the preliminary user requirements (PD5.2.1 and PD5.2.2).

• We were involved in the development of an Animated Narrative Demo for illustrating the overall aim, which was not stated in the DoW. Moreover, the development of a more advanced Demo Version has been made in collaboration with WP1, which will be used as the interface for Prototype 1 (see D1.3.9).

• Development of overall architectural design of SeamFrame:

Figure 2.3 The SeamFrame architecture, with its development environment, composed by the modelling and processing environment, the Knowledge Base, and the end-user applications


Page 45 of 196

The main architectural elements of SeamFrame are (see Figure 2.3): Knowledge Base; SOFA which is the SeamFrame core (Knowledge Manager, Model Manager, Tool Manager); SeamFrame Development Environment (Modelling Environment, Processing Environment); and a set of support applications: Seam:REF, Seam:LINK, Seam:GAMS, Seam:MOD. Using this framework it will be possible to deliver a number of SEAMLESS applications (SeamApps: e.g. APES, FSSIM, SEAMCAP (CAPRI integration in SeamFrame)). The core classes and components of SeamFrame are structured in a package named SOFA, or SEAMLESS OpenMI+ Framework Architecture. The SOFA contains the basic components needed for the Knowledge Base and to manage the OpenMI+ compliant executable modules constructed from models and tools. On top of the SOFA sit the packages that contain the modelling and processing environments. The modelling environment package sets the structure that a modelling application (such as MODCOM) must conform to so that it can integrate into SEAMLESS. For example, it must retrieve its data (knowledge objects) through the SOFA and implement an integration interface. The processing environment contains the implementation of the workflow environment for SEAMLESS. It enables the creation of workflows of modules, which are “executable” models and tools that implement OpenMI+ (an adapted version of OpenMI 1.0) interfaces.

• An overall implementation design has been produced and has provided the basis for the staged-delivery development plan (D5.3.1 and PD1.3.4).

• A design of the knowledge manager (i.e. domain editor) has been produced (PD5.3.2) and, in parallel, a first ontology for data related to different applications (APES, FSSIM, CAPRI) has been drafted. The ontology is currently under development: the ontologies for APES models and for FSSIM models have been developed. The ontologies for CAPRI are in progress.

• The simulation algorithm of MODCOM has been adopted and it has been made available in a .NET based implementation of MODCOM. The interface between SeamFrame and GAMS has been designed, based on the Java language.

• The integration of the modelling environment within SeamFrame has been designed. The design allows to ‘plug-in’ alternative modelling environments. The current choices are MODCOM for biophysical models and GAMS for farm economic and market economic models.

• The design of the processing environment and of a prototype of the workflow management system has been proposed.

• The design of the following SeamFrame applications has been proposed: APES, FSSIM-DM, FSSIM-MP, SEAMCAP.

• Implementation of the modelling environment has started. Using GAMS and MODCOM it is possible to assemble model components with the simulation and optimisation tools provided by MODCOM and GAMS, respectively.

• Implementation of the Knowledge Manager has started and we have designed and implemented a framework (Seam:DAT) to create Data Loaders. A data loader provides a layer between an Application Component and the Knowledge Base

• Implementation of the processing environment has started and it has been based on the design of the OpenMI 1.0 standard. The standard has been enhanced, in order to allow the exchange of complex data.


Page 46 of 196

• Development of SeamFrame applications such as first versions of the user interface, tool for retrieving external data, and ways for integrating models in the framework environment.

Contractors

ALTERRA (leader), IDSIA (co-leader), LU (co-leader), AntOptima, CRA, PRI, Simulistics (requested to resign), UBONN, UVM


The software development Work Package, WP5, has had a very difficult year in 2005. Being responsible for the development of the integrated simulation environment, WP5 was given a very important role in bringing the different domains together in a coherent and formal system, and translate this into workable software.

We could start (and that is what has happened) with designing the IT framework which would serve as the glue between the different components (models, databases, GIS, presentation tools etc.). We have strategically chosen to use existing components to reduce the risks on software development. Therefore we have chosen for OpenMI (deliverable of the EU-FP5 Harmon-IT project) as the linking environment, GAMS (commercial off-the-shelf software package) as the declarative modelling environment for optimization models and MODCOM (own development of PRI, one of the project partners) as the modelling environment for state-rate modelling.

It became obvious however in the first months of the project that our original planning for the first 18 months was difficult to keep. Reasons were:

1. Difficulties to obtain requirements that lay the basis for the system at the time needed. Although many systems exist within scientific domains, people just started to define how a cross-domain software system like SEAMLESS-IF must look like;

2. The notion that we could not take all 18 months to develop the prototype software: we need to finish way in time (month 13) to allow the scientists in WP3 and WP6 to develop and implement the Test Cases and make simulation runs.

This crossed our planning severely and we had to come up with several corrective measures to ensure the delivery of a working software prototype, which must be developed in time, within budget and with the right priorities regarding functionality. We took the following measures:

1. In April 2005, during the meeting in Bologna, we decided to make small software parts that implemented our view (the software engineers) on the system to be, in order to retrieve better requirements. Also, we decided to develop the first version of the Animated Narrative Demo (AND) as a joint effort with WP0, 1 and 7, as a means to communicate our goals;

2. These software parts and the AND were presented in Montpellier in June 2005. The scientists present agreed with the proposed solutions and provided the commitment to move forward in the chosen direction;

3. In June 2005 we have made a planning for finalizing the first working prototype of SEAMLESS-IF. We chose for a time-boxing project management approach (fixed time, fixed budget) of 4 bi-monthly incremental deliveries. Each time-box contains an iteration of requirements analysis – design – implementation – test – integration – transition. Starting in June, this would lead to finalizing the software development in January 2006, providing us with a two months slack period towards the critical path;


Page 47 of 196

4. This adjusted approach was communicated to all work packages, inviting them to assist in this strict and optimistic planning in order to arrive at the finish together;

5. We postponed the work on finalizing the requirements analysis till after the delivery of the software (month 17, May 2006) so we could use the evaluation on the software as the basis for further development;

6. Due to this iterative delivery scheme, the planned deliverables in 2005 (documents) could not be finalized at the required dates. This had to be rescheduled. For instance the design report could only be finished after all time boxes are finished, same for all other written deliverables;

7. Work on those deliverables (PD5.3.3; PD5.3.4; PD5.3.5; PD5.3.6; PD5.3.7) will be concluded in month 14-17, but the required inputs take place during all time boxes, so even in 2005;

8. Due this iterative delivery scheme, work on the planned deliverables in 2006 (software deliverables) was anticipated as parrt of the iterations in each time box. Again, those deliverables will be concluded in 2006, but the required input has taken place already significantly in the 2005 time boxes.

9. The user requirements will be re-assessed and evaluated after release of the first prototype of SeamFrame and hence PD5.2.3 and D5.2.4 are scheduled now for month 17.

At the end of the first year, WP5 looks back at a turbulent year in which we have spent useful but unplanned time in creating and sharing the vision on the software and then accelerated towards a productive software development phase which is about to be concluded (January 2006) with the first working prototype of SeamFrame. We will conclude with a period of maintaining, documenting and communicating our designs and software (month 13-18). Even though we have problems and had to adjust to the situation and changed our planning considerably, we still feel confident that the progress made to date will get us in time to the deadline of the first working prototype of SEAMLESS-IF.

As part of the changes decided in June, the leadership of WP5 also changed: Ir Tamme van der Wal (Alterra) replaced Dr Andrea Rizzoli as leader; he is supported by Andrea Rizzoli (IDSIA) and Dr Mats Svensson (LU) as co-leaders. The leadership by three persons has been evaluated twice and it was concluded that this was effective for this WP.

Finally a specific problem must be mentioned: the original plans for the adoption of declarative modelling in SeamFrame had to be revised due to the requested withdrawal of Simulistics as project partner (problems in realizing matching funds). We are now proposing a solution to this problem (key person of Simulistics will work as Third Party with LU), and the inclusion of declarative modelling has been postponed to 2006. For a full account of this change, see Annex F.

2.3.6 WP6 – Evaluation of SEAMLESS-IF and its components in typical real situations

Objectives

The role of WP6 will progressively become more important during the project’s lifetime; in 2005 the role was anticipated to be still minor. The main objectives of WP6 during year 2005 were:

• Specification of SEAMLESS-IF application: definition of Test case 1 and a first outline of Test Case 2 (Task 6.1).


Page 48 of 196

• Definition of scenarios: propose a scenario template and use it to define the baseline and the policy scenario for the two Test Cases (Task 6.2).

• Identification of the indicators to assess the impact of these scenarios on the sustainability and multi-functionality of agriculture and its contribution to sustainable development, using the indicator framework provided by WP2 (Task 6.2).

• For the implementation and comparison of baseline and policy scenarios in the two Test Cases, start up collection of additional data (in Test Case regions only) that are not yet available in pan-European databases (Task 6.3).

Progress


• In general the role of WP6 has turned out to be more prominent than anticipated, already in the first year. The precise questions from an application point of view have made the conceptual and methodological work more targeted and ‘integration-oriented’.

• The major characteristics of Test Cases 1 and 2 were described (PD6.1.1 and PD6.1.2).

• A general structure of the scenario template has been described in PD6.2.3 and a preliminary version was used by WP5 to propose a first version of the scenario editor in the Demo Version. Further development of the template will be made while implementing Test Case 1 scenarios in Prototype 1

• A list of indicators adapted to Test Case 1 and likely to be calculated by the models has been produced and proposed to WP2 for checking of its consistency with their indicator framework and for addition of social indicators (PD6.2.1).

• Collection of additional data for the Test Case regions started already in the first year, in order to check that the farm typology proposed by WP4 will be compatible with the major characteristics of farming systems in these regions. A preliminary check was made of the availability of data to parameterize FSSIM and APES in each region.

• On the basis of Test Case 1 a procedure to use SEAMLESS-IF for policy assessment was produced by WP6 and used to improve the Demo Version (PD1.3.6).

Contractors

INRA (leader), UBONN (co-leader), CEMAGREF, CIRAD, IAMM, SGGW


The main problems and corrective measures were:

• A significant effort of communication through WP1 was and will be made to reach a consensus among partners about what is a scenario in SEAMLESS-IF. A new activity will, in collaboration with WP1 and WP5, to work on the concepts behind scenario definition (WP1) and to implement and test a scenario editor in SeamFrame (WP5). As a result it is proposed to postpone D6.2.5 and D6.2.7 to month 14. Overall Task 6.2 is delayed by ca. 2 months.

• The scientific and practical questions related to a Scenario editor adapted to SEAMLESS-IF objectives and SeamFrame structure have not been identified in the DoW but appeared


Page 49 of 196

to be important. Addition of an Indicator calculator to SeamFrame has been requested to WP5 for Prototype 1.

• WP2 did not manage to produce in time an indicator framework which could be used by WP6 to propose a list of indicators to be calculated in Test Case 1 with Prototype 1. For Prototype 1 a list of indicators has been proposed by WP6 among those likely to be calculated by the CAPRI, FSSIM and APES models. This indicator set will be assessed and completed with respect to social indicators by WP2. The WP2 indicator framework will not be fully tested with Prototype 1, but Prototype 2.

• Frequent discussions showed that the objectives and methods to organise interactions with users in the Test Case regions were not clear. This should be clarified before starting the implementation of Test Case 2. In collaboration with WP7, users groups will be identified at EU level (a subset from the User Forum) and in each Test Case region. They will be activated in mid 2006 with the start of Test Case 2, in order to test the participatory approaches and the indicators.

• Due the personnel changes at VUZE, this partner will not be able to fulfil the originally planned activities; their budget has been added temporarily to the Reserve fund of WP6 and the budget will be re-allocated in the new implementation plan.

2.3.7 WP7 – Participatory development, dissemination, training and use of SEAMLESS-IF

Objectives


• To acquire knowledge on the potential Prime user organizations for the application of SEAMLESS-IF. The justification is threefold: 1) to better know who will be the user organizations of the final results of SEAMLESS-IF; 2) to get feedback from potential user organizations on the development of SEAMLESS-IF; and 3) to better understand the training needs for potential user organizations (Task 7.2).

• To identify, describe and develop protocols for a set of suggested participatory methods to be included in SEAMLESS IF (Task 7.3).

• To co-ordinate and co-organize dialogues with users and stakeholders for the entire project (Task 7.4).

Progress


• The work on prime user organisations (as reported in PD7.2.1) gave us important insights about a number of potential user organizations inside the European Commission as well as other users. The series of lengthy interviews with key persons in DGs and other organizations gave information and contacts that were of great use when organizing meetings with potential users and in preparing for setting up a User Forum.

• A comprehensive inventory and review of a wide range of participatory methods was completed (D7.3.1). The range of methods covered many different kinds of demands on participatory methods. This extensive knowledge about participatory methods made it possible to choose and develop specific methods for application within SEAMLESS-IF.


Page 50 of 196

• People were contacted who would be suitable candidates for the Users Forum. A questionnaire with questions about potential users was sent to all WP-leaders in February 2005 which resulted in a list of names and key organizations ranging from DGs to research institutions. Based on this input and other investigations a series of interviews and informal discussions were held in Brussels with the aim of identifying people that would be suitable for the Users Forum. In addition to organizations located in Brussels, several interviews were also made at the EEA and the OECD. As a result of the initial contacts two information meetings for selected groups of staff were held at DG Agriculture (28 April 2005) and at DG Environment (15 June 2005). In October two separate user meetings, with Prime users and Other users, were held in Brussels. Prime users were represented by DGs Agriculture, Environment and Economic and Financial Affairs. At these occasions an advanced version of the Animated Narrative Demo (AND2) was used as input for discussions. The feedback concerning a wide range of issues was relevant and useful. As a result of the October user meetings, a core group of the User Forum has been identified and contacted. The participants represent DGs Agriculture, Environment, Economic and Financial Affairs, and Regional Policies, the EU parliament, JRC and EEA.

• In order to get potential users involved in an informed and relevant dialogue with the project, it was decided to create an Animated Narrative Demo. Two versions, AND 1 and AND 2, have been developed by WP5 and WP0, with support from WP1, 2 and 7.

• The first SEAMLESS external newsletter was completed at the end of October (see Annex C). As the newsletter is aimed for a broad SEAMLESS external audience the topics were chosen to give a general introduction to the project followed by more specific articles. The newsletter has been sent to international stakeholders as well as national interest organizations.

• Several small training sessions have been organised with WP3 and WP5 participants in June, July, September, October and November, in which mostly young SEAMLESS scientists were trained in the new software and modelling approaches (see WP3, Task 3.1 for details of these workshops). A proposal for funds to arrange external summer schools (PD7.1.1) for training in application of SEAMLESS-IF was submitted but not yet funded

Contractors

LU (leader), WU (support via WP0), CEMAGREF, CIRAD, IAMM, ILE ASVR, SGGW, UEVORA, ILE ASVR, SGGW


The main problems were:

• Very early in the project we learned from experiences of the companion integrated project SENSOR, on user interaction and meetings they organised early in the project in Brussels. We decided a different strategy was needed, which can be summarized as a careful, slow and persistent approach of building up a relationship with individuals within DGs, JRC and EEA via phone calls, email exchanges and bilateral meetings. Only thereafter we decided to organize joint meetings at the EC. So far, this strategy has proven to be effective.

• Funds within the SEAMLESS project for internal training are very limited. A proposal for funds for external summer schools was submitted but not funded. This means that plans for arranging external summer schools had to be abandoned. Internal training,


Page 51 of 196

primarily to young scientists will be arranged with whatever limited funds (1 person month) are available within the SEAMLESS project. The first comprehensive occasion will be arranged after the release of the Demo Version and important parts of Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF (March 2006). The training will focus on WP3 and WP6 participants on how to use the model train that will be included in Prototype 1. It was agreed with the EC to submit D7.6.4 no later than month 24.


Page 53 of 196

3 Work Package progress in first year

3.1 Overview of the objectives and actions per Work Package

3.1.1 WP1 – Conceptual and methodological design and integration of SEAMLESS-IF

WP 1 Task 1.1 Co-ordination of WP1

Management and Coordination activities

This task co-ordinates all tasks within WP1. The task has co-ordinated the exchange of results from scientific activities among all Work Packages that are related to the development of the conceptual and methodological framework, the demo-version and prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF. The task has organised several meetings within the WP in order to integrate scientific activities. For facilitation of cross-disciplinary and cross-team work the coordination has developed an extensive Project Glossary.

Meetings - Wageningen, The Netherlands, 11 January 2005 - Lund, Sweden, 27 January 2005 - Den Haag, The Netherlands, 22-23 March, 2005 - Bologna, Italy, 14-15 April, 2005 - Montpellier, France, 29 June, 2005 - Bonn, Germany, 3-4 October, 2005 - Den Haag, The Netherlands, 21-22 November, 2005

Involved participants 1. WU

Deviations Partial delay of work in tasks T1.2 and T1.3

Corrective actions - Evaluation of performed work with some re-allocation of budgets to account for over-budgeting and enable inclusion of newly identified topics

- Activities that were not well estimated in the original DoW will be readjusted in the next implementation plan

WP 1 Task 1.2 Development of concept(s) of agricultural systems and determination of user requirements

Objectives The aim of this task is provide the theoretical and methodological basis required for flexible conceptualization of agricultural systems and associated model and tool development within SEAMLESS-IF. The task has been organized in two activities which aim to: 1. Establish the conceptual groundwork of SEAMLESS-IF

which includes: - Development of a glossary of terms - Identification and specification of agricultural system(s)

addressed within SEAMLESS-IF. This includes the determination of the general bio-physical and economic boundaries, socio-cultural issues and elements that are of


Page 54 of 196

primary importance for the development of SEAMLESS-IF.

- Development of a theoretical basis for flexible conceptualization of systems and associated model development within SEAMLESS-IF.

2. Determine the user requirements Status at starting point The work started basically from scratch. Ideas about systems

analysis and modelling were available but needed further development for application to highly integrated, multi-scale systems. User requirements were not known at the start of the project and needed specifications in interaction with mainly prime users.

Progress towards objectives / Achievements made

Two reports have been produced, PD1.2.1 describing the conceptual framework for integrated analysis and assessment of agricultural systems in SEAMLESS-IF and PD1.2.2 with an overview of the European organizations that have been identified as probable users of the SEAMLESS-IF.

Ad. 1. The report PD1.2.1 reviews basic concepts of systems analysis, sustainability and sustainable development and integrated assessment and proposes a conceptual model and procedure for integrated analysis and assessment of agricultural systems in SEAMLESS-IF.

Ad. 2. The report PD1.2.2 contains a first outline of which organisations engaged in European policy making are likely to become users of the SEAMLESS-IF. Most, but not all, of the potential users described in the report have been informed about the project and interviewed about their organisations. Information from users refer to the extent they use modelling today, the issues in agriculture and sustainability that they estimate will be the most important on the EU agenda in the years ahead, and the requirements they would have on a modelling tool that meet their needs.

Involved participants 1. WU, 15. ALTERRA, 23. FLD, 24. IAMM, 12. IDSIA, 2. INRA, 14. LEI, 20. LU, 22. UBONN

Deviations The work on both reports has been completed though with some delay.

Corrective actions Additional workshop (Den Haag, 21-22 March 2005) to reach common understanding on conceptual model for SEAMLESS-IF.

WP 1 Task 1.3 Developing and integrating the methodological concept of SEAMLESS-IF

Objectives This task builds on the conceptual basis and aims to integrate the methodological approaches developed in all other WPs into SEAMLESS-IF. More specifically the methodologies developed and integrated in this task include:


Page 55 of 196

- Determination of the attributes of the system(s) and definition and selection of qualitative and quantitative indicators and threshold values. This includes methods for qualitative pre- and post-model analyses capturing socio-cultural and institutional issues and linkage of these indicators with quantitative model results (PD1.3.1+PD1.3.5).

- Specification and selection of quantitative models of SEAMLESS-IF and development and selection of procedures for up- and downscaling (PD1.3.2).

- Specification and selection of databases of SEAMLESS-IF in interaction with WP4 (PD1.3.3).

- Development of a concept of SeamFrame to link model components and databases and to provide integration and optimisation algorithms and procedures for data handling and spatial representation, quality control, output visualisation and documentation (PD1.3.4).

- Specification of a procedure for application of SEAMLESS-IF to concrete policy and innovation issues (PD1.3.6).

- Specification of complementary participatory methods for using SEAMLESS-IF (PD1.3.7).

The task aims to provide individual reports on specific methodologies and a summary report integrated all proposed methodologies into a concept for SEAMLESS-IF. In addition, a Demo version is developed that shows all features of SEAMLESS-IF but in a non-working fashion (D1.3.9).

Status at starting point The work started mainly from scratch. Some initial ideas were available about data bases and models that should be used in SEAMLESS-IF


The larger number of activities within this task has been completed and the results are summarized in a series of reports. However, some activities related to indicator, model and data specifications have been delayed considerably. An initial set of methodologies and concepts is available and will form the basis for the summary report on methodologies (PD1.3.8) the Demo version and prototype 1.

Involved participants 1. WU, 4 UBER, 8. CRA, 10 NLH, 15. ALTERRA, 23. FLD, 24. IAMM, 12. IDSIA, 2. INRA, 14. LEI, 20. LU, 22. UBONN, 30 CEMAGREF

Deviations Some activities related to indicator, model and data specifications have been largely delayed. In the case of model specification and selection, the related activity has also been over-budgeted. Some critical issues related to scenario development, procedures for up-and downscaling and for model calibration and validation were not considered and/or completed and need specific attention in the future.

Corrective actions Evaluation of performed work with some consequences for resource allocation of individual partners.

Activities that were not well budgeted (A1.3.2) or that were missing (scenario development, calibration and validation) in the


Page 56 of 196

original DoW will be readjusted or introduced, respectively, in the next implementation plan.

WP 1 Task 1.4 Development of first and advanced prototypes and the final specification of SEAMLESS-IF by integrating deliverables from WP2-5 (input to WP6 and WP7)

Objectives Aim of this task is the sound integration of activities from other WPs for the development of the first and advanced prototypes of SEAMLESS-IF and to ensure timely delivery of an operational integrated framework with the proper specifications. Prototypes are defined as working versions of SEAMLESS-IF, though not all components of SEAMLESS-IF will be working yet.

Status at starting point The work started from scratch.


The task is based on tasks T1.2 and T1.3. Specifications for prototype 1 have been clarified together with a work plan and associated responsibilities.

Involved participants 1. WU, 15. ALTERRA, 23. FLD, 24. IAMM, 12. IDSIA, 2. INRA, 20. LU

Deviations No deviation. The first activity (A1.4.1) has just started

Corrective actions No corrective measures.

Task 1.5 has not started yet (according to schedule).

3.1.2 WP2 - Indicators and threshold value for integrated sustainability assessment at multiple scales

WP 2 Task 2.1 Co-ordination and management of WP2

Management and Coor-dination activities

WP 2 has recuperated the delay caused by 2 changes of WP leaders: first a change of WP leader and then of co-leader. The WP has for much of the year only been co-ordinated by the WP leader which has not been beneficial, neither for the WP nor for the WP leader. The integration of the WP in the rest of the project has been slightly insufficient. This may be partly due to the fact that much of the proposed work for the initial year concerned literature reviews. WP leaders have concentrated on catching up delays and have encouraged WP members to look beyond WP2, which seems to have worked.

Meetings 6 meetings were organised:

- Lund, Sweden, 25-28 January 2005; 25 participants

- Bologna, Italy, 12-14 April 2005; 20 participants


Page 57 of 196

- Montpellier, France, 26-27 June 2005; 15 participants

- Lund, Sweden, 24-26 August 2005; 12 participants

- Paris, France 14th October 2005; 6 participants

- Paris, France 14-15 December 2005; 20 participants

Involved participants 10. LU (leader; first 2 months VUZE); 2. INRA (co-leader)

Deviations 2 changes of WP leaders, and drastic reduction in input from VUZE because of change of personnel. The work in WP2 (apart from Task 2.4) was considerably delayed.

Corrective actions WP leaders have been replaced and a lot of energy from the leadership of WP2 has been put into catching delays and targeting WP2 at integration in SEAMLESS-IF. WP2 co-leadership will be evaluated in February 2006. Significant parts of the resources of VUZE have been re-allocated to LU, UEVORA, UNIABDN.

WP 2 Task 2.2 Development of thematic indicators of sustainability

Objectives The overall objective of this task is to specify the methodologies and data requirements (either from surveys or models) for constructing and evaluating thematic indicators. Close interaction with WP3 and WP 4 is essential to ensure that proposed indicators are built upon available variables (in models) and data (in databases). If no models are available WP 2 will aim to provide alternative assessment methods and data from WP4.

Status at starting point The task has based its initial work on the existing and vast amount of literature on environmental, economic and social indicators and different types of indicator frameworks that have been developed for a long range of purposes. Few earlier initiatives have focused on ex-ante policy assessments and few initiatives have had the ambition to assess the impacts on all the scales that are relevant for SEAMLESS. As a consequence the researchers have had to complement and add information to make earlier research usable for the needs of SEAMLESS.


During the first year this task has revised the existing literature and a report (PD 2.2.1) on indicator frameworks and indicator initiatives has been produced. This PD does not only contain an extensive review of indicator initiatives which will be very useful as a “reference book” for the future work of the WP, but also describes a systemic indicator framework that fits the objectives of the project. It is an interesting and semi-operational input to an area where few operational frameworks have been produced.

The task has also produced a second PD (PD 2.2.2), which has been a joint product of Activities A2.2.2-A2.2.4. This PD contains an analysis of indicator gap areas (gap analysis); it also includes an assessment of the gaps and the reasons for it. This assessment will be very useful in the further communications with WP 3 and 4 as


Page 58 of 196

well as in the development of a strategy where WP2 will develop complementary assessment models. PD2.2.2 also contains an assessment of gaps in relation to the institutional assessment.

The indicator frameworks developed in PD2.2.2 will be applied in Prototype 1 (as far as the number of indicators permits).

Involved participants This task had a three-headed leadership: Environmental: 2.INRA (Colmar), Economic: 16.UNEW and Social: 25. UEVORA. Other involved participants are 2. INRA (Avignon, Montpellier), 30. CEMAGREF, 3. CIRAD, 14. LEI, 31. UNIABDN, 19. VUZE.

Deviations The progress in this task has been sub-optimal, but we finally managed to catch up with the time schedule even though some activities A2.2.1 and A2.2.2 (involving partners INRA Colmar, UABDN, INRA Montpellier, CIRAD) have not been entirely completed. The three headed leadership of the Task does not seem to be most effective management solution.

It has been identified that more effort has to be put in assessment procedures (incl. models) for social indicators.

Corrective actions The lack of input will be corrected in the new implementation plan.

The task have recently, for the most urgent work towards the delivery of D2.1.1 been reorganised in a Task Force bridging the different Activities.

More focus has been put on the actual work towards the Demo Version and the Prototypes of SEAMLESS-IF; this will serve as an integrative factor.

To increase the scope for social modelling increased cooperation has been initiated with social modellers in WP3 and researchers focussing on social typologies in WP2 and WP4 as well as in task descriptions ensuring that a close and good cooperation is made between institutional assessment and the development of social indicators

WP 2 Task 2.3 Assessment of multifunctionality

Objectives The principal objective of this task is the development of indicators of multifunctionality. The initial work of this task has mainly been based on the results of the EU FP6 Specific Support Action Multagri Multagri (contract no.505297). Based on the work of Multagri and Task 2.2, Task 2.3 will develop indicators for evaluating the degree to which the farming systems exhibit multifunctional characteristics and how this contributes to economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability.

Status at starting point The work of Multagri and new literature (scattered across disciplines) in the area of multifunctionality of agriculture and


Page 59 of 196

jointness between aspects of the agricultural system.


The task has produced a report PD2.3.1 (A2.3.2) which is an assessment of current knowledge in the area. It has also assembled literature and examples of multifunctional indicators, which will be useful as a basis when focussing on the needs of SEAMLESS in Activity 2.3.1 and 2.3.3, which recently have been initiated.

Involved participants 30. CEMAGREF (task leader)

Deviations The start of Activity 2.3.1 and 2.3.3 have been slightly delayed but it has recently started with PD2.3.2 and the inclusion of more partners in the work.

Corrective actions A new person has been recruited at CEMAGREF to handle the work that was slightly delayed.

WP leader has interacted with the task leader about his responsibilities to coordinate the work of the involved partners.

WP 2 Task 2.4 Development of indicators characterising policy delivery systems and institutional environment

Objectives The main objective of the task is to develop an analytical framework for assessing the compatibility between policy instruments and institutions as a basic requirement for efficient and effective policies. It will identify the different institutional settings compatible with different policies, in particular with policies supporting sustainability and multifunctionality.

Status at starting point The literature on institutional assessment is very scattered and case study-oriented which is not sufficient for the integrative and multi-scale approach taken in SEAMLESS. Moreover, there are very few ex-ante assessments made from an institutional perspective. This has resulted in the need of an extensive interpretation of the available scientific information.


The task has delivered PD2.4.1 (A2.4.1), which is an extensive literature review on approaches taken and methodologies used in other research projects. This PD serves as a good basis for the future work in the task as well as a background for other researchers involved in the project. It also proposes the PICA assessment methodology (Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment). The work of A2.4.2 and A2.4.3 has also been initiated resulting in a consultation sent out to all relevant WPs about the needs of information for institutional assessment. The work has also resulted in input to Task 2.2 and in a Memo sketching the linkages of this PICA assessment tool to Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF.

Involved participants 4. UBER (Task Leader), 30. CEMAGREF

Deviations INRA Colmar and VUZE have not provided the necessary input.

Corrective actions The lack of input will be corrected in the new implementation plan.


Page 60 of 196

WP 2 Task 2.5 Development of a methodology to assess thresholds, critical ranges and targets of indicators

Objectives The objective of this task is to study the methods for evaluating and, where feasible, eventually establishing critical ranges for selected indicators. If such critical ranges cannot be identified with solid scientific arguments, methods for trade-off analysis will be proposed. In co-operation with WP3 and 4 (mainly) and with WP6 and 7, the sensitivity of indicators of performance of social-economic-environmental systems to setting various targets will be assessed.

Status at starting point A lot of literature is available. But a methodology for which ideas and how these ideas will be implemented in the SEAMLESS project have to be developed in this task.


A first draft of PD2.5.1 has been produced which shows a promising and knowledgeable starting point of this task.

Involved participants 2 INRA Avignon (Task leader); 2. INRA Colmar, 14. LEI, 17. SGGW, 25. UEVORA, 31. UNIABDN, 16. UNEW

Deviations The start has been slow but a draft of a first deliverable has been produced.

Corrective actions WP leader has informed the task leader about his responsibilities to integrate the work of the involved partners.

WP 2 Task 2.6 Development of a methodology to assess multiple indicators and compare them

Objectives This task will explore different approaches based on multi-criteria analysis that can be used to compare associated multiple indicators over time, across regions and farming systems to assess the degree to which they meet a set of pre-determined criteria for sustainability or multifunctionality. A methodology for multi-criteria assessment of multiple indicators in SEAMLESS will be defined and developed.

Status at starting point Some research has been done in the area but nothing has been developed to fit an initiative as comprehensive as SEAMLESS which will demand a lot of creativity of the involved researchers as for example grasping multifunctionality across geographical scales.


A first Deliverable has been produced by the Task (PD 2.6.1). The content of this PD has been slightly changed to mainly develop strategies for what could be important to ask stakeholders in relation to indicator assessment.

A first example of aggregation will be included in the Demo


Page 61 of 196

Version and in Prototype 1; otherwise the Task has not started at a larger scale.

Involved participants 2. INRA Colmar (Task leader), 30. CEMAGREF, 2. INRA Avignon, 14. LEI, 11. LU, 16. UNEW, 4. UBER, 25. UEVORA

Deviations INRA Colmar has not given full input to A 2.6.1

Corrective actions WP leader has consulted the task leader about his responsibilities to integrate the work of the involved partners.

The lack of input will be corrected in the new implementation plan, and INRA Colmar will give its input during spring 2006.

3.1.3 WP3 - Quantitative tools and models for integrated sustainability impact assessment at multiple scales



1) Internal co-ordination of tasks. The arranged meetings are listed below. The coordination of tasks has been difficult, particularly because of their large number and their size and because of the range of topics and scales covered. Some task leaders changed during this first year. It turned out to be difficult to obtain responses in time, delays in reporting were frequent.

2) Cross WP activities, and interactions with other WPs. The coordination with other WPs has mainly been done at WP1 level. A few meetings have been arranged with other WP leaders on specific topics and WP1, WP3, WP4 and WP5 partners have been present at many of the WP3 meetings. A special cross-WP task force on data bases has been established to enhance communication and decision making. Another one was created concerning CAPRI integration in SEAMLESS with WP4 and WP5.

Meetings WP level:

Lund, Sweden, 25-27 January 2005; Parallel sessions Tasks 3.2, 3.3, 3.7 and 3.3, 3.5, 3.8, 3.9

Montpellier, France, 31 August – 2 September 2005; various parallel sessions

Task level:

Brussels, Belgium, 1-2 March 2005; Task 3.3 (with participation of Task 3.2)

Milan, Italy, 14-15 June; Task 3.2 and WP5

Milan, Italy, 12-14 July; Task 3.3 and WP5

Wageningen, The Netherlands, 28 September 2005; Task 3.2 and


Page 62 of 196

WP5

Bologna, Italy, 17-21 October 2005; Task 3.2

Lugano, Switzerland, 14 November 2005; Task 3.2 and WP5

Phone meetings concerning Task 3.6, November and December

Involved participants 24. IAMM, 8. CRA and 10. NLH (months 1-9)

Deviations Personnel could be recruited after the official start of the project, from month 2 onwards – in some cases only month 6. The level of monitoring was in some cases too low. Also, the Delays in project deliverables affected several tasks, for various reasons:

Task 3.2, the workplan was very demanding, and the under evaluation, in some cases, of effort and expertise required have caused a late start with recruited personnel in some teams.

Tasks 3.3 – 3.4 have undergone a merging and revision of the workplan during the first phase of work as result of the development of the detailed analysis of the goals and methods to achieve them.

Task 3.5 had new modelling aspects and software integration aspects. The level of integration of CAPRI into SEAMLESS, once the details have been analyzed, has required a considerable effort.

Task 3.7 and 3.9 had, as planned a late start. The integration of T3.7 with 3.2 and 3.3 has proven to be more challenging and laborious in the first phase as estimated.

Task 3.8 had a change of leadership.

Corrective actions In general, a tighter level of monitoring has been implemented, and the workplan has changed to closer deadlines with smaller incremental goals. Changes in the WP leadership have been decided and will be implemented starting from 2006.

For Task 3.2, downscaling of the goals for the prototype of month 18, intensification of communication, tighter work plans.

Task 3.3 and 3.4 have been merged (see Description of Task 3.3) as the separation of development of the farm model and its application is artificial;

Task 3.5 will be moved to WP5 in the new implementation plan, as it has become clear that it is mostly a software Task, whereas the modelling task has been concentrated in T3.6.

Task 3.6 is mostly innovative work needed to achieve some key functionalities requested to the SEAMLESS-IF; PDs and actions have been redefined in the course of the first year.

Task 3.7 tighter connections to tasks 3.2. and 3.3 have been established.

Task 3.8 has a new work plan with more clearly defined goals and


Page 63 of 196

responsibilities.

WP 3 Task 3.2 Development of biophysical modules and a model frame for simulating agricultural activities (APES: Agricultural Production and Externalities Simulator).

Objectives The overall objective is to develop a modular system for agricultural production and externalities simulation (APES). APES will comprise a set of model components to simulate specific domains of agricultural production: Enterprises (crops, grasses, orchards, vineyards, agroforestry), Environment (weather, soil water, soil carbon and nitrogen, soil erosion, pesticides), and Production Technology (agricultural management). APES will be a software in which model components are linked via a simulation engine (MODCOM) which has been further developed to allow a state of the art simulation of processes relevant to agricultural production activities. APES must be able to accept production activities (production enterprises combined to production techniques) as inputs, simulate such production activities vs. a sample of weather to account for the stochastic component of weather, and output production and environmental data to be processed to obtain technical coefficients of FSSIM.

The objective of T3.2 is making available software components and applications:

1. Model components: SOIL_water, SOIL_erosion, data types (month 4), prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), CRA. (This component is changed as an alternate option for soil water and tillage impact simulation – same as SOIL_water2)

2. Model components: SOIL_carbon-nitrogen, data types (month 4), prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), UNIABDN

3. Model components: SOIL_structure (now renamed SOIL_water2), data types (month 4), prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), CIHEAM (This component is changed as an alternate option for soil water and tillage impact simulation – same as SOIL_Water)

4. Model components: CROPS, data types (month 4), prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), WU

5. Model components: AGROFORESTRY, data types (month 9), prototype version (month 18), final version (month 30), INRA

6. Model components: GRASSES, data types (month 4), prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), INRA

7. Model components: VINEYARDS, data types (month 9), prototype version (month 18), final version (month 30), INRA

8. Model components: ORCHARDS, data types (month 9), prototype version (month 18), final version (month 30), INRA

9. Model components: PESTICIDES, data types (month 4), prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), CRA

10. Model components: WEATHER, data types (month 4), prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), CRA

11. Model components: MANAGEMENT_data types (month 4), prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), CRA

12. Model components: MANAGEMENT_models, data types (month 4),


Page 64 of 196

prototype version (month 12), final version (month 24), CRA 13. Application: APES installation, prototype version (month 12), final

version (month 30), CRA 14. Application: Instances of the Agricultural Production and Externalities

Simulator (APES) targeted at use in FSSIM and WP6 (month 12, month 18, month 30), CRA

Status at starting point

The starting point was the expertise of different terms with respect to building modular models (both in modelling and technological terms). A COM version of MODCOM was used as starting point for the new .NET version needed.

The work proposed is innovative and no/limited re-use of implemented models could be done.


Progress towards objectives:

A general understanding of the problems related to a modular development is achieved in all teams. Data-types for each component, stored (for some components) in the ontology co-developed with WP5 and active on the web, have been defined.

First versions of all components planned (except Pesticides and Agroforestry) are available; some are fairly advanced.

A conceptual frame to handle management simulation in an extensible way has been developed; the basic ontology has been used in Task 3.3 for the Production Technique Generator (PTG).

A software design for model components has been developed in cooperation with WP5. The interaction with WP5 has allowed developing an ontology for variables and model components, and it has allowed further developing the simulation engine MODCOM.

Teams are now working to deliver the first version of APES to be used for generating technical coefficients, accepting inputs of weather, soil, and management.

Achievements made:

1. Software made available: https://portal.wur.nl/sites/seamless/WP3/Newsletters/Forms/AllItems.aspx (page “Software”)

2. Papers accepted for publication: https://portal.wur.nl/sites/seamless/WP3/WP33%20library/Forms/AllItems.aspx (folder SEAMLESS publications)

3. Version 0.2 of APES as a stand alone application (available on a CVS (i.e. data server for software development) to teams developing components)

Involved participants

8. CRA (task leader), 2. INRA-Toulouse, 2. INRA-Montpellier, 31. UNIABDN, 24. IAMM, 1. WU

Deviations The work in this task is delayed by ca. four months, on an average. Reasons for the delay are the following:

1. Late recruitment of personnel 2. Under evaluation, for some teams, of the effort and expertise required 3. Cascading effect of WP5 actions/delays 4. “Too soft” management of the task in the first 5-6 months; putting pressure

to participants in a more directive way should have been done from the start, given the tight schedule in the project to achieve the objectives


Page 65 of 196

It has become evident that a critical action has not been explicitly planned, i.e., building a software tool for testing vs. observational data/calibration of simulation models vs. current activities. This requires a new action to be inserted in the new implementation plan.

In detail:

Project deliverables The deliverables about model components (including the data-type parts), although in most cases as drafts and submitted with 1-4 months delay, have been submitted by

PD3.2.1 CRA-ICAM UNIMI October 2005 (missing the part on soil erosion) – SOIL_Water

PD3.2.2 UNIABDN December 2005 – SOIL_carbon_nitrogen

PD3.2.3 IAMM-IRD December 2005 – SOIL_structure

PD3.2.4 WU December 2005 - CROPS

PD3.2.6 INRA Toulouse December 2005 - GRASSLAND

PD3.2.12 CRA-ICAM ISCI October 2005 – WEATHER

For the following only data-types are available:

PD3.2.9 CRA-ICAM UNICATT April 2005 - PESTICIDES

PD3.2.7-8 INRA July 2005 – VINEYARDS and ORCHARDS

Finally, no PD was submitted for:

PD3.2.6 INRA Toulouse - AGROFORESTRY

PD3.2.14-14 CRA-ICAM ISCI lead, all partners (this was partially a “cascading effect” from delays in components development) - MANAGEMENT

Deliverable.D3.2.18 (CRA-ICAM ISCI lead, all teams), to be delivered by December 31st, is expected to be delivered by April 30th. This is made with first prototypes of all components and hence is delayed:

The two activities (A3.2.4 and A3.2.6) from Task 3.2 (APES) have been moved to Task 3.3. Dynamic simulation approaches for weeds and livestock seem not to be feasible nor essential within the current project; these issues will be dealt with in a static fashion in Task 3.3.

Corrective actions

1. Downscaling of ambition for the 18 months prototype in order to meet the deadline: this has resulted in accepting a lower than originally planned number of requirements for each model component and some focus on the components (related to soil, crops and weather) which are essential for Prototype 1.

2. Training via internet, via a course, and via workshops 3. Development of a monthly newsletter to foster the exchange of

information and summaries about teams activity https://portal.wur.nl/sites/seamless/WP3/Newsletters/Forms/AllItems.aspx

4. New implementation plan; some re-allocation of activities and corresponding budgets


Page 66 of 196

WP 3 Task 3.3 Development and application of a Farm System Simulator (FSSIM)

Objectives The overall aim of this task is to develop a generic bio-economic farm model (FSSIM) for major farming systems in the EU25. FSSIM consists of a data module (FSSIM-DM) and a mathematical programming model (FSSIM-MP). The Data Module identifies and quantifies current and alternative activities. The specific objectives are:

1. To develop FSSIM-MP, being a generic template with different variants depending on the farm types and conditions to be simulated (A3.3.1).

2. To develop a procedure and automated tool for quantification of current activities.

3. To develop a Production enterprise Generator (PEG), Production Technique Generator (PTG) and Technical Coefficient Generator (TCG) for alternative activities. PTG and TCG will be linked to APES for assessing part of the technical coefficients (A3.3.2; A3.3.3; A3.3.4). This makes up FSSIM-DM.

4. Apply FSSIM to major farm types in EU25; this requires a calibration procedure. The tools are developed while using a first application for arable farming in Flevoland (The Netherlands) (A3.3.5 and A3.4.x).

The work in the first year entirely focused on arable farming and conceptual and tool development.

Status at starting point The work started from scratch in the sense that no readily available data module or mathematical programming model was available. Concepts from literature were the starting point.


Ad. 1. A review of bio-economic models has been produced (PD3.3.1), which provided input to the template of FSSIM-MP, as documented in PD3.3.2 and implemented in GAMS software. The first version (to be used in Prototype 1) is a static version. A dynamic version is anticipated for year 2, for specific purposes. Participants 24. IAMM and 1. WU

Ad. 2. A procedure and corresponding tool for assessing current activities is currently in progress. It is based on FADN data and a survey to collect expert knowledge for each of the regions and farm types. The FADN data are used to reduce the number of activities asked for in the survey; expert knowledge is the source of detailed information regarding crop management, level of implements and yields. FADN data combined with expert knowledge are used to provide variable cost estimates corresponding to the cost levels reported in the FADN data. A prototype is ready and working for some farm types in Flevoland. Participants 5. ZALF; 8. CRA; 10. NLH;

Ad. 3. The PEG and PTG have been designed and implemented in JAVA and are working within SeamFrame; The PEG generates alternative crop rotations; the PTG generates alternative production techniques. The TCG assembles and calculates all technical coefficients for defined activities and is scheduled to be


Page 67 of 196

working in January 2006. All tools are linked via the Knowledge base (incl. linkage to APES) and are considered stand-alone tools. Participants 1. WU and 13. PRI

Ad. 4. Currently all participants are working on a first running prototype of FSSIM for Flevoland. This must be working in January 2006.

FSSIM uses crop rotations as activities, which enables simulation via APES and inclusion of all kinds of biophysical interactions between crops; yet, the structure of the model allows simulation of policies and management issues related to individual crops.

Involved participants 1. WU (Task leader); 5. ZALF; 8. CRA; 10. NLH; 13. PRI; 24. IAMM and 32. UEDIN

Deviations The work in this Task is on schedule, though fragile because of partners working on different components. These components are currently integrated, but it remains to be tested how well the full integration will work out.

The definition of the sample of farms/regions to be used in Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF (PD3.4.1) was delayed because of a delay in definition of the farm typology and availability of FADN data (through WP4); however, this will not be critical and the contents of this deliverable have been added to PD1.3.2.

Work on livestock activities has started (participants 13. PRI and 32. UEDIN), though not part of Prototype 1, and also work on a dynamic version FSSIM has started (conceptual phase) – participants: 24. IAMM and 1. WU.

Corrective actions The work of Task 3.4 (application of FSSIM = FARM-INT in the DoW) will be merged with Task 3.3 as this is deemed more consistent with the organisation of other Tasks in WP3 and moreover, development of tools must go hand in hand with applications, particularly when different teams are working on different components within the Task. From now on we only use the acronym FSSIM.

The identification of current activities was added as a separate activity.

The two activities (A3.2.4 and A3.2.6) from Task 3.2 (APES) have been moved to Task 3.3; reasons for this are that mechanistic dynamic approaches for livestock and weeds are not feasible. Livestock activities will be assessed via static approaches and effects of weeds will be assessed in a static fashion as well. It is anticipated that this will be positive for the quality of assessment of activities and the purpose of the livestock and weed components: i.e. to assess technical coefficients for FSSIM.

Because of the many partners and highly conceptual and methodological work, the Task works with relatively small, incremental steps and tight deadlines.


Page 68 of 196

WP3 Task 3.4: Merged with Task 3.3

WP 3 Task 3.5 Integration of model components for economic analysis at the market scale.

Objectives The objectives of this task are to embed components in SEAMLESS-IF relating to the simulation of the market mechanism for agricultural products, i.e. the interplay of demand, supply and prices.

The first choice of market model within SEAMLESS-IF is the CAPRI model.

Status at starting point The work started with a running version of the CAPRI model at NUTS-2 regional level.


- Activity 3.5.1: Fitting CAPRI into SEAMLESS-IF. CAPRI is being integrated into SeamFrame. The integration consists in providing an OpenMI interface to access the workflow of CAPRI analysis. The integration of CAPRI has several levels, some of which still to be decided in the terms of processing capabilities and data processing. Once the model can be run from the OpenMI application and the policy scenario editor is constructed, further steps will be taken in order to separate model and data.

Intensive modelling work has been carried out with WP5 in order to implement a farm type layer in the model for further linkages with FSSIM, APES and the structural change estimation approach (based on FADN data).

- Activity 3.5.2: Extensions within CAPRI to facilitate implementation of policy scenarios

CAPRI has been partially re-designed in order to allow for a policy scenario editor (currently being developed in collaboration with Lund Univ.) in which the overall scenario variables are re-defined.

A common GAMS wrapper bridging CAPRI and FSSIM and SeamFrame has been also developed with WP5.

- Activity A3.5.3: Develop modules to facilitate easier interpretation of market level model results

All exploitation tools from CAPRI (XML editor, JAVA maps and SVG Graphics) have been made available for WP5 and will flow into SeamFrame. For the purpose of the project, some user-friendly features have been added (e.g. they are all linked to the main XML output table and can be called from the main interface).

Deliverables


Page 69 of 196

The work ongoing is been clarifying details about the level of integration and the proper actions to be undertaken. Hence, the critical revision of the initial workplan has caused some delays in the original schedule of delivery

All deliverables have been submitted and revised according to the comments included by the SEAMLESS office.

PD3.5.1 (definition of the CAPRI core modelling system) is available

PD3.5.2.1 (Meta-data definition for output and input data of CAPRI) is available.

Involved participants 22. UBONN (Task leader); 10. NLH; 24. IAMM

Deviations None

Corrective actions Need to establish the links to GTAP (cit. from the DoW: “On the other hand, results from GTAP must be fed into SEAMLESS_IF, and clear Meta-Data defined to allow contrasting results from CAPRI with GTAP”) both from the methodological part as well as from the result exploitation side. No clear responsibilities have been assigned for these activities; this will be clarified in the new implementation plan. It will be a joint work of UBONN and LEI, related with Task 3.8

This task has a large IT component, such that it better fits in WP5; in the new implementation plan it will be moved to WP5.

WP 3 Task 3.6 Methods and model components for consistent linkages between economic models at the farm (FSSIM) and market scales (CAPRI)

Activity 3.6.1

Objectives Selection of functional forms that can be used at the farm level and the market level

Status at starting point To obtain conventional supply functions one needs to transform the primal function to the dual. Not all functional forms are equally well equipped for this.


FSSIM is a linear programming routine with some non-linear elements. As such FSSIM produces supply responses in n-product space between products that are connected through farm resources and relative prices.

CAPRI uses linear supply functions (quadratic cost functions) that at the outset are not well suited for functional transformation.

Conclusion: rather than focussing on functional forms, we work on portraying the relative shifts/changes in FSSIM supply responses and transferring these to CAPRI. This is described in PD3.6.1. Currently, work on this estimation routine has started.


Page 70 of 196

Involved participants 10. NLH, 22. UBONN, 24. IAMM, 1. WU and 5. ZALF (has since September (WP3 meeting) shifted work focus to T3.7)

Deviations

Corrective actions None (see Task 3.6.3 for how this work proceeds)

Activity 3.6.2

Objectives Mapping price changes from the market scale to the farm type scale

Status at starting point No change from the DoW


This work has not started yet

Involved participants 22. UBONN, 24. IAMM, 10. NLH

Deviations None

Corrective actions None

Activity 3.6.3

Objectives Mapping the supply behaviour of FSSIM to CAPRI

Status at starting point For mapping routines to work, we (i) need a process for capturing supply responses (see Activity 3.6.1 on functional forms for details), (ii) routines for selecting sample regions and their farm types where full-fledged FSSIM analyses are to be done, and (iii) methods/routines for expanding the results.


Ad. (i): First version of estimation routines tested on preliminary FSSIM data. Results are promising. Ad. (ii) Work on this has started where a key criterion is exchangeability (= interchanging in and out-of-sample FSSIM models should not influence aggregate results in stable solutions). Ad. (iii) Literature work on this has started (to be completed early 2006).

General comment: this task has become concrete through the substantial conceptual work that has been done early in the project – in good shape.

PD3.6.2 is available and describes the common product list of FSSIM and CAPRI.

Involved participants 22. UBONN, 1. WU, 10. NLH and 24. IAMM

Deviations None


Activity 3.6.4

Objectives Developing an iterative link between FSSIM and CAPRI

Status at starting point In the initial plans for this task, it was envisioned that FSSIM and CAPRI had to be run iteratively until convergence had been reached (provided the functional forms approaches were not chosen – as they have not, cf. Activity 3.6.1)


Page 71 of 196


The mapping of supply responses from FSSIM to CAPRI appears not to need an iterative link (see Activity 3.6.3 for details). Routines for transferring these supply responses still need to be developed, but appear to be less demanding than initially thought.

Involved participants 22. UBONN, 24. IAMM, 1. WU

Deviations This task appears to become easier than first expected


Activity 3.6.5

Objectives Develop a methodology and model components for endogenous aggregation weights from farm types to the market scale

Status at starting point Changes in relative profits (or risk corrected utilities) between farm types imply that for some policy scenarios, the distribution of farm types will change. This process is gradual, partly due to the age composition among farmers, partly due to the issue of sunk costs.


Two approaches are being investigated: (i) Markov chain analysis using relative profits (where work is on the way). (ii) Running FSSIM with much or less fixed capital, where much fixed capital gives a short run solution and less fixed capital mimics a longer term solution. This approach only deals with the sunk costs issue. Both approaches needed.

PD3.6.6.1 provides the literature review on approaches to estimate structural change and is available. PD3.6.7.1 is in progress, but delayed since the agreement with DG Agriculture on the use of FADN data was significantly delayed.

Involved participants 22. UBONN, 24. IAMM, 10. NLH, and 1. WU

Deviations None


WP 3 Task 3.7 Environmental and ecological modelling and landscape assessment

Objectives Three main aspects are considered in Task 3.7:

1. environmental issues in a regional context, 2. visual characteristics of landscapes and their perception, 3. biodiversity at the landscape level and landscape

heterogeneity.

Activity 3.7.1 and 3.7.4 Environmental issues at the territorial level

Objectives Develop a model component for assessing environmental indicators at territorial level


Page 72 of 196

Status at starting point Ambiguous how the linkages FSSIM-territorial models are to be included. FSSIM and APES model environmental and ecological impacts at the field or agricultural activity scale, but do not capture interactions between farming practices and potential impacts on the landscape. Results of FSSIM/APES will be used as a starting point for the work in these Activities.


In the context of model developments at ZALF, Germany, an expert based approach was developed (MODAM-fuzzy environmental impact assessment tool: Zander P., Kächele H. 1999. Modelling multiple objectives of land use for sustainable development. Agricultural Systems 59: 311-325), that translates expert knowledge on environmental impacts of agricultural practice in fuzzy rules for analysing crop production processes with respect to their impact on a number of environmental issues at field scale. The basis of this approach is a detailed description of the crop production processes. Therefore, the ZALF team developed in the context of the survey on current activities (Activity 3.3.9) a database to store the survey information. This survey and the related database takes into account the requirements of the environmental impact assessment. Considerable efforts were made, to structure the database in a way that allows the application of the fuzzy tool for environmental impact assessment.

The linkage between FSSIM and the landscape scale will be made via the spatially explicit farm typology (WP4).

FSSIM objective function and activities will include additional for of land use (forests, various types of grazing, etc,) and special landscape elements (solitary trees, hedge rows, etc.) to enable various types of policies for enhancing/ managing these attributes.

Involved participants 5. ZALF, 10. NLH

Deviations Work was only due to start in late 2005. PD3.7.1 is delayed (3 months) and forecasted for month 15

Corrective actions In the new implementation plan the proposed work has been clarified.

Activity 3.7.2 and Activity 3.7.5

Visual characteristics of landscapes and their perception

Objectives Develop a model component for visual attributes in the landscape

Status at starting point Numerous perceptive and valuation studies of landscape elements. These are to be used as a basis for deciding what visual characteristics FSSIM and the territorial models must be able to capture.


Page 73 of 196


Up to now, most of the activity has been conceptual work. As the task only started in the 2nd half of the year, it can benefit from the progress made in the other tasks (and WPs). The first stages have concerned an evaluation of existing landscape visualisation tools, in order to select the most appropriate one(s) for the perspective of SEAMLESS. The "Orchestra" model (and software: Auclair D., Barczi J.-F., Borne F., Etienne M., 2001. Assessing the visual impact of agroforestry management with landscape design software. Landscape Research, 26(4): 397-406) is one option, however it is now being upgraded and the new version is not yet available. The possibilities of the "L1" landscape modelling prototype (Gaucherel, C., Giboire, N., Viaud, V., Houet, T., Baudry, J. and Burel, F. 2006. A domain specific language for patchy landscape modelling: the Brittany agricultural mosaic as a case study. Ecological Modelling, in press) will be further explored. A link between this sub-task and the others in T3.7 will be sought.

Involved participants 2. INRA (Task leader), 10. NLH

Deviations The first deliverable PD3.7.2 was initially planned month 9, but 1) this forecast was unrealistic and should have been month 12, and 2) difficulties to hire the necessary staff have postponed this deliverable for another 3 months. It is now forecasted month 15.

Corrective actions An additional person has been hired to partly compensate for the difficulties encountered within INRA. This should help catch up the delay.

Activity 3.7.3 and Activity 3.7.6

Biodiversity and landscape heterogeneity

Objectives Develop a model component for biological diversity, applied to some key indicator species

Status at starting point Since information on landscape configuration is still scarce, certainly if it involves the assessment of the effects of changed farming practices on this configuration, and resources for this task are very limited, we will try to build as much as possible on existing material of other studies in Europe in which the LARCH and LEDESS (Eupen, M. van, Knol W.C., Verwuij P., Nijhof B. 2002. Landscape ecological decision and evaluation support system. LEDESS. Users guide. Alterra report 447. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen. NL; Eupen M. van, Pouwels R., Knol W. 2002. LEDESS-LARCH. Alterra Internal report. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen. NL) models have already been applied. In a number of former studies we have already analyzed the effects of different land use scenarios, and we know on the basis of these studies which species may be suitable for this approach. Case studies will fit as much as possible to the Pilot regions studies selected in SEAMLESS. The first case applied will be for Flevoland, which coincides with one of the sample regions of SEAMLESS.


Page 74 of 196


The progress until now has been limited to making an inventory of the data requirements for applying the LARCH model to the Flevoland situation and assuming one scenario situation about a change in the landscape configuration resulting from a change in agricultural farming practices.

Involved participants 15. ALTERRA, 10. NLH

Deviations In month 12 the deliverable ‘data type’ will only be specified for the Flevoland situation and only a rough indication will be given of general data input data needed for other case studies for which the biodiversity modelling within Seamless will be done. PD 3.7.3 is forecasted month 15


Activity 3.7.7

Objectives Integration in SeamFrame of the model components specified above.

Status at starting point -


Although this activity is planned to take place between months 30 and 36, the development of the model components (A3.7.4-6) will consider integration in SeamFrame from the very start.

Involved participants 2. INRA, 5. ZALF, 15. ALTERRA, 10. NLH

Deviations Not started yet

Corrective actions Not started yet

WP 3 Task 3.8 Develop model components for impact analysis onto non-EU countries and LDCs (third world countries)

Objectives The overall aim of this task is to develop a modelling framework to analyze the impact of European (agricultural) policies on sustainable development in developing countries.

The specific objectives are:

1) To link CAPRI and GTAP: a. Establish a link between CAPRI and GTAP b. Introduce developing country features in GTAP

2) To develop country CGE models for developing countries a. Develop a national level CGE model for developing

countries b. Establish a link between the national level CGE model and

GTAP c. Establish a link between the national level CGE model and

developing country versions of FSSIM 3) To develop farm household models based on the FSSIM

approach


Page 75 of 196

a. Develop versions of FSSIM suitable for use in developing countries

Status at starting point The work in this task was only broadly described in the description of work.


The first year has been spent on clarifying what exactly is going to be done and by whom. This has resulted in the first deliverable of this task (D3.8.1) outlining the modelling framework that will be developed in this task, as well as indicating the changes that may be made to the global models to incorporate developing country features (which was the role of the first deliverable as foreseen in the original planning of this task).

PD3.8.2 and PD3.8.3 will provide the amendments of GTAP and CAPRI, respectively, and have been postponed till Month 18.

Involved participants 14. LEI (Task leader), 3. CIRAD, 22. UBONN

Deviations The work in this Task is behind schedule. The delay has mainly been caused by a broad definition of this task in the original proposal. Combined with unclear leadership regarding the first task (developing country features to be included in the global modelling) work did not really get started until the second part of 2005. Hence, also postponement of PD3.8.2 and PD3.8.3.

Corrective actions The task leader has taken the lead to get the work in this task started by redefining the scope of the first deliverable to a document outlining the rationale of the modelling work to be undertaken in this task. The resulting document addresses both the original objectives (developing country features to be included in the global models) as well as describing in more detail the modelling work to be undertaken in this task.

Based on this document an adjusted task description was prepared, dividing the work in three simultaneous modelling tracks along the lines of the three objectives defined above. The new task description foresees in considerable progress in the first 6 months of 2006 which should get this task back on track.

WP 3 Task 3.9 Develop econometric models for capturing rural employment and gender issues

Objectives The main aim of this task is to develop labour indicators for insertion into the CAPRI model to be later used for calculating income per head indicators and other social indicators. Secondary aims involve gender and other social studies that may or may not feed directly into the model. The specific objectives are to econometrically estimate labour coefficients and to add to this any other available information to achieve the overall objective. The work in the first sixteen months was to be mainly econometric and synthetic, for inclusion in CAPRI.

Status at starting point The work started from scratch from a data sense. The econometric


Page 76 of 196

models were clear enough although some specification testing was necessary.


All the econometric work has been estimated, except that for Italy (which is rather slow). Before estimations, the FADN databases were first cleaned, and put into useful format for estimation (GAMS and Stata). Many estimations for each region/country have been carried out, and at the moment results are being analyzed prior to incorporation into CAPRI. Meanwhile data from other sources (mainly farm structure surveys and censuses) have been examined, and some work has progressed in this area which will be useful after month 16. The applied method is the same in all countries and regions, but the characteristics of the databases are somehow different between countries, what creates some difficulties (as in the case of Italy)

Involved participants 26. NUI Galway

Deviations The data cleaning and preparation took somewhat longer than anticipated and the size of the Italian model has necessitated other strategies.

Corrective actions The Italian model has been broken down and is being estimated regionally.

3.1.4 WP4 – Databases for integrated sustainability impact assessment at multiple scales


Management and Coordination activities (up to 10 lines)

1) Internal co-ordination of WP. The arranged meetings are listed below. During the first phase of the project the internal communication was not working smoothly. Therefore a common mailing list has been set up to record all the communication within the work package.

2) Timing of activities with relevant activities in other WPs. The coordination with other WPs has mainly been done at WP1 level. A few meetings have been arranged with other WP leaders on specific topics and WP1, WP3 and WP5 partners have been present at many of the WP4 meetings. A special cross-WP task force on data bases has been established to enhance communication and decision making.

3) Co-ordination with external parties:

• WP4 has coordinated with the IP project SENSOR on data issues such as common metadata format and a common standard spatial reference.

• Close collaboration has been established with the STREP Dynaspat (contract no. 501981) on allocation of land use and


Page 77 of 196

farm types.

• The work on regional typologies has been presented at an EEA expert meeting to coordinate with recent JRC-EEA work in the field of further development of spatial indicators of High Nature Value farmland.

Meetings WP level:

• Lund, Sweden, 25-27 January 2005

• Copenhagen, Denmark, 27-28 April 2005

• Den Haag, The Netherlands, 5-6 September 2005

• Wageningen, The Netherlands, 8-9 December 2005

Cross WP level (excluding WP1 meetings):

• UniBonn team, Bonn, Germany, 23-24 June 2005

• WP2 leader, Lund, Sweden, 12 September 2005

External:

• Participated in EEA meeting on data, Copenhagen 11 February 2005

• Meeting with SENSOR on data, Copenhagen, 14 March 2005

• Meeting with SENSOR on data, Copenhagen, 27 April 2005

• Presented SEAMLESS for the Danish Ministry of agriculture, Copenhagen, 19 May 2005

• Meeting on SEAMLESS-Dynaspat collaboration in the field of detailed spatialisation of land use and farm types, 28 September 2005

• Presented SEAMLESS in relation to High Nature Value farmland, EEA Copenhagen, 5 December 2005.

Involved participants 23. FLD (WP leader), 15. Alterra (WP co-leader)

Deviations None, apart from communication issue – see above.

Corrective actions Established common mail list at [email protected]

A cross WP task force on data bases has been established to enhance decision making.

WP 4 Task 4.2 Populating the SEAMLESS knowledge base.

Objectives To deal with the technical issues related to populating the knowledge base with information concerning the datasets made


Page 78 of 196

available through SEAMLESS-IF.

To test the knowledge base and the data registration interface through the process of populating it.

To assess needs and define the technical challenges and strategies in relation to access to data having different formats and spatial scales.



The guidelines for populating the demo version knowledge base have been described (PD4.2.1). This includes:

1. Adoption of the ISO 19115 metadata standard.

2. Use of extensions and simplifications to ISO 19115 proposed by the World Meteorological Organization to allow for a simpler and more precise definition of aspects that are crucial to integration of data and models in SeamFrame;

3. Identification of precise XML schemata to employ in the compilation and validation of metadata;

4. Definition of a simple protocol for semantic annotation that can be used in a descriptive way to allow initial semantic characterization, and processed to allow precise semantic tagging after the prototype stage when an agreement is reached on the SEAMLESS ontologies and annotation tools have been developed.

The databases that will be included in the first prototype SEAMLESS-IF have been identified and described in other WP4 tasks using standard metadata according to the ISO 19115 formalism. However, adaptation of all available databases to SEAMLESS-IF has not been done because specifications from WP5 for doing this have not become available yet. The data integration strategy being implemented is based on the principle of decoupling the actual dataset storage from their representation in the knowledge base, through a web-based process of data registration that creates unique entries in the knowledge base for each available dataset. This is based on the realization of the difficulties in keeping content and storage synchronized, and is meant to facilitate maintenance and allow uncoordinated changes to both the data content and their representation in the knowledge base.

Involved participants 29. UVM (Task leader), 12. IDSIA, 11. LU

Deviations It can be foreseen that further metadata descriptions have to be elaborated as the project continues and new datasets will be included. The process of data registration has been developed to loosen the coupling between data descriptions and actual datasets, allowing a certain degree of independence in the development of the data content and the ontologies that describe them, and permitting storage of datasets on databases that remain independent from the Knowledge Base and can be independently maintained. Also it is not quite clear if the delivered metadata


Page 79 of 196

completely comply with what is needed in SEAMLESS-IF because of the immaturity of the correspondent ontologies The adoption of the ISO 19115 standard with a few mandatory extensions has been specified to address this issue.

Corrective actions The work in this Task closely relates to WP5, and in fact progress now strongly hinges on progress in WP5. From a coordination point of view it is preferred to move this Task to WP5, which is proposed in the new implementation plan.

WP 4 Task 4.3 Collection of environmental data at EU-25 level and adaptation to SEAMLESS knowledge base.

Objectives • Survey available European data sets on the environment

• Describe the data in metadata

• Collect data on the environment

• Defining the spatial framework

• Define regional typologies and routines for descriptive profiles

• Adapt data and metadata to the SEAMLESS knowledge base



The databases that will be included in the first prototype SEAMLESS-IF have been identified based on a consultation with other WPs. The datasets selected for the first prototype have been described in metadata (PD4.3.1). Ca. 80% of the data sets has also been made available through the web server at FLD. This includes land cover data, climate data, soil data and data on an environmental classification. The water catchment areas and elevation databases are still missing because the most up to date versions have not become available yet.

However, adaptation of all available databases to SEAMLESS-IF has not been done because specifications from WP5 for doing this have not become available yet.

The spatial framework for the environmental data has been defined. All data will be normalized to a 1 by 1 km standard grid.

On the spatial extent the following decisions have been taken:

1. EU25 is the targeted area for which we aim to provide consistent datasets.

2. Where datasets already cover Bulgaria, Romania, Norway, Switzerland, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Turkey and Albania these will also be included.

3. At a later stage (most likely in year 3 or 4 of the project) we will consider if it is possible to make the datasets consistent


Page 80 of 196

for some or for all of the countries mentioned under point 2.

The area for which data will be included, corresponds to the area with information included in the Corine 2000 dataset. Excluded countries are those that Corine does not cover. Here a more coarse approach is used, based on a coastline map.

Some effort has been put into coordination with the work in task 4.4 through the development of a bio-physical typology of HSMUs (Homogeneous Spatial Mapping Units) developed in the Dynaspat. The HSMUs are used to link land use and farm typology information to. The bio-physical typology of the HSMUs is aimed at creating a zonation of Europe in relatively homogeneous entities from an agronomic perspective and whose boundaries coincide at the same time with the HSMUs to which the farm types are allocated. The approach to build the bio-physical typology has thus been described, but the typology has not been finalized.

Involved participants 9. JRC (Task leader), 15. ALTERRA, 23. FLD.

Deviations It can be foreseen that further metadata descriptions have to be elaborated as the project continues and new datasets will be included. Also it is not quite clear if the delivered metadata completely comply with what is needed in the SEAMLESS-IF.


Postponement of delivery of PDs:

- PD4.3.2: Spatial framework for environmental data: Supposed to be delivered in Month 8, postponed to month 14.

- PD4.3.3 will be delivered in month 14.

WP 4 Task 4.4 Collection of farming system data at EU-25 level, developing a farm typology and adaptation to SEAMLESS knowledge base.

Objectives • Survey available European data sets farming


• Defining and testing typology of farming systems

• Collect data on farming


• Adapt data and metadata to the Seamless knowledge base



Page 81 of 196


The databases that will be included in the first prototype SEAMLESS-IF have been identified based on a consultation with other WPs. This includes the FADN data only (PD4.4.1). For the first extraction of data a set of variables has been chosen based on input from WP3. This data set has been made available on the web server at FLD, respecting the contractual arrangements made with DG Agriculture. A second version with more variables will be elaborated for the first prototype. However, the data still needs to be adapted to the SEAMLESS-IF after specifications from WP5.

The typology of farming systems (PD4.4.2) has been agreed upon after several presentations at WP1 meetings. The typology is based on work on previous projects like ELPEN (contract no. QLK5-CT-1999-01296) and IRENA (i.e. project on Indicator reporting on the integration of environmental concerns into agricultural policy).

The typology includes discriminating variables on:

1. Size, measured in European size units 2. Intensity, measured in output/ha 3. Specialization and land use, defined by EU-typology and land

use. The first data set that has been made available includes all farm types with more that 15 sample farms in the so called agricultural regions used by FADN. In a next step the farm types with less than 15 sample farms will be aggregated to provide information on the entire agricultural area.

As regional typologies related to farming two issues have been selected for the first prototype:

1. regional farm type pattern 2. High Nature Value farmland The first has been delayed as it will be based on the distribution of farm types in the developed farm typology. The second one is available in a draft version, but will be updated in 2006 as an improved map will be elaborated by JRC outside the SEAMLESS project.

Involved participants 23. FLD (Task leader), 14. LEI, 15. ALTERRA, 5. ZALF, 1. WU

Deviations It is not quite clear if the delivered metadata completely comply with what is needed in the SEAMLESS-IF. Also, for the regional typologies it can be envisaged that policy question specific typologies have to be elaborated as the project progress.

Corrective actions In the second implementation plan it will be specified how detailed farm management data on current and alternative activities will be collected; this was largely missing in the DoW.

To clarify the adaptation to SEAMLESS-IF a cross WP data base task force has been established.

PD4.4.3 will be delivered in month 14 2006.


Page 82 of 196

WP 4 Task 4.5 Collection of rural socio-economic data at EU-25 level and adaptation to the SEAMLESS knowledge base.

Objectives • Survey available socio-economic European data sets


• Collect socio-economic data


• Adapt data and metadata to the SEAMLESS knowledge base



The databases that will be included in the first prototype SEAMLESS-IF have been identified based on a consultation with other WPs. The datasets selected for the first prototype has been described in metadata (PD4.5.1). However, the exact variables and the temporal extent to include still need to be defined. The datasets for the first prototype all come from Eurostat except the COCO data base that is developed by UniBonn.

For institutional indicators some preliminary data sources have been identified, but still need to be investigated by WP4. Two issues have been selected for the regional typologies:

1. Degree of rurality 2. Structural handicaps (linked to regional level labour and

capital endowment) The typologies will be finished early 2006.

A suggestion for a standard regional level to provide socio-economic data has been elaborated, but has to be coordinated with other WPs and with the IP SENSOR.

Involved participants 14. LEI (Task leader), 22. UBONN, 23. FLD.

Deviations It can be foreseen that further metadata descriptions have to be elaborated as the project continues and new datasets will be included. Also it is not quite clear if the delivered metadata completely comply with what is needed in the SEAMLESS-IF. Also, for the regional typologies it can be envisaged that policy question specific typologies have to be elaborated as the project progress.

Corrective actions In the second implementation plan it will be described how regional data on policy implementation can be collected.

To clarify the adaptation to SEAMLESS-IF a cross WP data base task force has been established.

PD4.5.2 will be delivered in month 14 2006.


Page 83 of 196

WP 4 Task 4.6 Define and develop databases for the global level

Objectives • Survey the need for global data


• Collect global data

• Adapt data and metadata to the Seamless knowledge base



The databases that will be included in the first prototype Seamless-IF have been identified based on a consultation with other WPs. The datasets selected for the first prototype has been described in metadata (PD4.6.1). The GTAP data have been collected, but they have not been put yet on the data server. For the two other data sets AMAD and FAOstat, the exact variables to include still need to be defined. Also, the data still needs to be adapted to the SEAMLESS-IF after specifications from WP5.

A first draft on uniform codes for agricultural activities has been elaborated. The uniform codes at present covers data for CAPRI and GTAP models.

Involved participants 14. LEI (Task leader), 22. UBONN

Deviations It can be foreseen that further metadata descriptions have to be elaborated as the project continues and new datasets will be included. Also it is not quite clear if the delivered metadata completely comply with what is needed in the SEAMLESS-IF.

Corrective actions To clarify the adaptation to SEAMLESS-IF a cross WP data base task force has been established.

WP 4 Task 4.7 Protocols for spatial analysis.

Objectives • Developing protocols for combining spatial and statistical data and model outputs in spatial analysis.

• Developing protocols for up- and down-scaling of spatial and statistical information and model outputs.



The parts of the work that describe a common spatial framework and links between grids and regions have been completed. However, it still has to be agreed with WP5 how exactly the protocols should be delivered.

The work that deals with the allocation of farm types will be delayed due to dependence on the Dynaspat project results and because no preliminary data have been available on the farm typology. The method to deal with the allocation of farm types has been described for the prototype regions. The application to the prototype regions and the rest of the EU-15 will be done early


Page 84 of 196

2006. Extension of the work to rest of EU-25 awaits availability of data from FADN and LUCAS (for the Dynaspat allocation) for the new Member States. When these data will become available is uncertain.

Involved participants 15. Alterra (Task leader), 23. FLD

Deviations As mentioned above the work is delayed for several reasons. Also the chosen approach is much more comprehensive than the approach originally planned, as only after the start of SEAMLESS we became aware of the Dynaspat land use allocation which created the possibility to spatialize farm types more precisely.

Corrective actions In the second implementation plan the exact responsibilities and related resource needs for the final work on allocation of farm types will be specified.

To clarify the adaptation to SEAMLESS-IF, a data base task force has been established.

The delivery of a PD will be postponed as follows:

- PD4.7.1: Protocols for spatial analysis for the Domain editor in WP5. Includes farm allocation and integration of NUTS into HARM. The integration of NUTS into HARM has been finished. The allocation of farm types will not be delivered in month 12 but will be postponed to month 14.


3.1.5 WP5 – SeamFrame Software: architecture and implementation



Managing a software project of this size, with this number and diversity of participants is not a straightforward task. We had to take some firm decisions about the way forward because external requirements were lacking or incomplete. Also, to keep everybody working on the right things takes a lot of effort. Finally, the coordination with other WPs is a daily, very demanding task.

We have used most of the WP1 meetings to communicate our progress and approach in order to start getting feedback. We have started a cross-WP action on databases because this was ambiguously defined in the DoW and a deadlock was ahead.

We have devoted this period to develop Prototype 1 (18 months) and we are anxious to see how the other WPs work with it and what their comments and feedback will be. We need that feedback to move forward to the next prototype.

Meetings • Wageningen, The Netherlands, 10 January 2005


Page 85 of 196

• Lund, Sweden, 26-27 January 2005

• Lugano, Switzerland, 17-18 February 2005

• Bologna, Italy, 12-13 April 2005

• Montpellier, France, 27-28 June 2005

• Wageningen, 26-27 September 2005

• Lugano, 14-15 November 2005

Each meeting included a WP5 management meeting and an optional WP5 committee meeting.

Involved participants 15. ALTERRA (WP-leader), 12. IDSIA and 11. LU (WP-co-leaders)

Deviations The sequential (or waterfall) management approach of WP5, suggesting clear vision from users to build on, has been abandoned and replaced by a more iterative, agile management of the software development. This has been very useful in making progress, although the original progress monitoring through D/PDs is no longer a valid instrument.

Corrective actions Extended WP5 management from 2 to 3 leaders, and a change in the WP5 leader. We divided the attention and work load among the three of us.

We have obliged partners to provide a bi-weekly progress report to keep track of all activities. We find this very useful and lowering the threshold of communicating issues.

As WP management, we have taken up a more responsible role towards other partners with regards to monitoring and steering.

WP 5 Task 5.2 Inception: analysis of requirements for SeamFrame

Objectives Analysis of requirements as a basis for software development

Status at starting point Requirements were expressed already throughout the preparation phase of this project. However, these requirements were not very concrete, often incomplete and crucial requirements were missing.


Work started in month 1 right at the start of the project. Several interviews have been done with internal users (modellers, database developers etc.). A first good grouping of users based on their (potential) requirements has been made and successfully used in further communications (PD5.2.1 and PD5.2.2).

The formulations and analysis of requirements of such a complex system such as SeamFrame is not easy, as few involved people do have the overview and the holistic perspective to cover the entire system and its’ usages. Very often prototypes are needed to stimulate the user’s inputs, and capture the proper requirements.


Page 86 of 196

We have used several of the WP1 meetings to communicate our progress and approach in order to start getting feedback. We were also involved in the development of an Animated Narrative Demo for illustrating the overall aim, which was not stated in the DoW. Moreover, the development of a more advanced Demo Version has been made in collaboration with WP1, which will be used as the interface for a full prototype.

We now need feedback to move forward to the next prototype.

Involved participants 11. LU (Task leader), 15. ALTERRA, 27. ANTOPTIMA, 12. IDSIA, 11. LU, 13. PRI, 8. CRA, 29. UVM

Deviations It became clear that requirements were difficult to obtain since nobody has ever defined in concrete, formal terms how the system must look like. Most requirements refer to wishful thinking of the interviewed people.

Corrective actions The Rational Unified Process (RUP) approach of WP5 which was described in the DoW, needed a clear vision of the final outcome to work towards, has been replaced by an AGILE procedure for software development.

The finalisation of requirements analysis (PD5.2.3 and D5.2.4) is postponed till after delivery of the software for Prototype 1, because we need the software system as prototype to provide scientists with a concrete prototype of what it can look like. We anticipate attainment of better requirements after this has been achieved and be able to complete our set of requirements for the next prototype.

WP 5 Task 5.3 Elaboration of the design and specification of the software architecture and components

Objectives The main objective of this task was to design all the characteristics and features needed to create SeamFrame, specifically its software components and the applications. An objective was also to define common interfaces for model and data classes, according to the input received from WP3 and WP4 respectively.


1. design of overall architecture of SeamFrame, layout for integration of the sub-parts;

2. design of domain editor; specification of ontologies for data representation;

3. design of model builder; specification of model ontologies, including the model interfaces;

4. design of the processing tools; design of simulation, calibration, data analysis algorithms; design of the interface between SeamFrame and GAMS;


Page 87 of 196

5. design of the modelling environment; design of the GUI for model management;

6. design of the processing environment; design of the workflow management system;

7. design of SeamFrame applications as instances of workflows; design of their user interface;

8. revision of first design iteration.

Status at starting point The work started from a number of designs already available to partners or available through literature. More specifically, the domain editor has been inspired by the design of TwoLe (Rizzoli et al) and IMA (Villa). The model builder by the work on declarative modelling by Muetzelfeldt and Villa and by the MODCOM modelling framework (Hillyer et al.).


Ad 1. The overall implementation design has been produced and has provided the basis for the staged-delivery development plan (D5.3.1).

Ad 2. The domain editor was first renamed domain manager and finally labelled knowledge manager, without substantially changing its purpose and scope. A design of the knowledge manager has been produced (PD5.3.2) and, in parallel, a first ontology for data related to different applications (APES, FSSIM, CAPRI) has been drafted. The ontology is currently under development.

Ad 3. The ontologies for APES models and for FSSIM models have been developed. The ontologies for CAPRI are in progress.

Ad 4. The simulation algorithm of MODCOM has been adopted and it has been made available in a .NET based implementation of MODCOM. The interface between SeamFrame and GAMS has been designed, based on the Java language.

Ad 5. The integration of the modelling environment within SeamFrame has been designed. The design allows to ‘plug-in’ alternative modelling environments. The current choices are MODCOM for biophysical models and GAMS for farm economic and market economic models.

Ad 6. The design of the processing environment and of a prototype of the workflow management system has been proposed.

Ad 7. The design of the following SeamFrame applications has been proposed: FSSIM-DM, APES, FSSIM-MP, SEAMCAP.

Ad 8. Design revisions are constantly underway. The first major revision has not been achieved yet. It is scheduled for month 14.

Involved participants 12. IDSIA (Task leader), 15. ALTERRA, 11. LU, 29. UVM, 13. PRI, 8. CRA, 27. ANTOPTIMA, 22. UBONN.

Deviations Ad 1. No deviations

Ad 2. Development of the ontologies for the different domains


Page 88 of 196

(biophysical, farm economic, market economic) is progressing at different velocities. The ontology for biophysical models has progressed more.

Ad 3.The work on the definition of model interfaces has been delayed, mostly because of a dependency on WP3 who first had to define the data structures, by means of the knowledge manager. The original plans for the adoption of declarative modelling in SeamFrame had to be revised due to the requested withdrawal of Simulistics as project partner. The design for the inclusion of MODCOM and GAMS as ‘model builders’ has arrived quite late. PD5.3.3 has been postponed till month 13.

Ad 4. The calibration tools have not been designed, as well as statistical analysis tools. The design of data visualization tools has been added to this activity. PD5.3.4 postponed till month 13.

Ad 5. PD5.3.5 postponed till month 14.

Ad 6. PD5.3.6 postponed till month 14.

Ad 7. The DoW listed FSSIM, APES, and Market Analysis applications (CAPRI and GTAP). During the design, it emerged the need to break up FSSIM in its sub-applications (FSSIM-DM: PEG, PTG and TCG; FSSIM-MP). PD5.3.7 postponed till month 14.

Ad 8. The major deviation here is the way work is carried forward. From an original work process influenced by the Rational Unified Process (RUP), we adopted a more Agile-oriented software development process.

Corrective actions Ad 1. No corrections

Ad 2. The initial ambition of knowledge manager design has bee resized in order to deliver a working prototype for the end of 2005. Corrective actions will be needed to mitigate the ‘shortsightness’ introduced by the revision of breadth and scope of the knowledge manager.

Ad 3. A closer collaboration with WP3 has been established since June 2005 in order to compensate for the initial lack of communication. The inclusion of declarative modelling has been postponed to 2006, if the problem with Simulistics has been solved (proposal in new implementation plan).

Ad 4. The design and implementation of calibration and statistical analysis tools will be moved to WP3 (Task 3.2).

Ad 5. No corrections.

Ad 6. No corrections.

Ad 7. The design of FSSIM was broken into the FSSIM-DM and FSSIM-MP module. The integration of CAPRI has then delegated to a specific application named SEAMCAP.

Ad 8. The Agile software development process led towards a staged-delivery approach to develop the 18 month prototype.


Page 89 of 196

WP 5 Task 5.4 Production: development and implementation of SeamFrame

Objectives The main objective of this task is the implementation of what has been designed and prototyped during Task 5.3., namely the domain editor, model builder, processing tools, modelling environment and processing environment.


1. implementation of modelling environment, delivering a prototype at month 14;

2. implementation of the component toolbox (domain editor, model builder, processing tools), delivering a prototype at month 14;

3. implementation of the first prototype of the processing environment at month 16;

Status at starting point No software was available for the prototype, apart from MODCOM (open source, provided by PRI, partner of the project), to be used as modelling framework for biophysical models, and GAMS (commercial license required), to be used as modelling framework for economic models.


Ad 1. The implementation of the modelling environment has started. Using GAMS and MODCOM it is possible to assemble model components with the simulation and optimisation tools provided by MODCOM and GAMS, respectively. The packaging of the model components with the tools are ‘application components, which implement the OpenMI+ interface (see Ad 3).

Ad 2. The implementation of the Knowledge Manager has started and we have designed and implemented a framework (Seam:DAT) to create Data Loaders. A data loader provides a layer between an Application Component and the Knowledge Base.

Ad 3. The implementation of the processing environment has started and it has been based on the design of the OpenMI 1.0 standard. The standard has been enhanced, in order to allow the exchange of complex data structures and a workflow processing environment for application components is currently in testing phase.

Involved participants 15. ALTERRA (Task leader), 27. ANTOPTIMA, 12. IDSIA, 11. LU, 13. PRI, 8. CRA, 29. UVM

Deviations Ad 1. PD5.4.1 anticipated to month 14.

Ad 2. The model builders have been superseded by the original development environments of MODCOM and GAMS. Declarative modelling has been postponed till 2006. Calibration routines will be developed within the scope of WP3. PD5.4.2 anticipated to month 14.


Page 90 of 196

Ad 3. PD5.4.3 anticipated to month 14.

Corrective actions In general, implementation work has been anticipated in order to make the first prototype available by the end of January.

WP 5 Task 5.5 Development of SeamFrame applications

Objectives This task aims at bringing all components together in dedicated applications, fit to perform a specified task.

Status at starting point This task builds upon other tasks in WP5. The status at starting point is that other tasks delivered first products.


Work on this task has started in month 8. The user interface is developed together with the Demo Version as planned in WP1. This co-development lead to a very useful first version of the user interface;

Also, since month 10 the framework (both structure and components) started to be delivered and first integration activities took place leading to accepted ways of integrating models in the framework environment.

Also, a tool is delivered to retrieve external data into the framework for use inside the simulations.

Involved participants 8. CRA (Task leader), 15. ALTERRA, 27. ANTOPTIMA, 12. IDSIA, 11. LU, 13. PRI, 29. UVM

Deviations Activities moved forward in time, in coherence with the proclaimed time-boxing approach, therefore activities took place from month 8 onwards.

Corrective actions In general, implementation work has been anticipated in order to make the first prototype available by the end of January.


3.1.6 WP6 – Evaluation of SEAMLESS-IF and its components in typical real situations

WP 6 Task 6.1 Coordination between steps, test cases and partners


The objectives of this task were

1. To develop an operational organization to coordinate actions: a) Inside WP6: identification of working groups at each

level of SEAMLESS-IF application: EU (macro-level) and the 4 test case regions (meso-level). Team leaders have been identified at each level. Test case leaders have also been identified.

b) Between WP6 and other WPs: the organization described


Page 91 of 196

above showed to be efficient to manage, under the supervision of WP6 leader, the complex interactions with all WP. The coordination was facilitated by the pivot role of WP1.

2. To provide other WPs, especially WP1, with concrete examples of agricultural systems and story lines on the basis of Test cases scenarios and regions.

Meetings Ad. 1) These groups were organized during the kick-off meeting in Lund (25-28 January 2005) and met during the WP6 meeting and cross WP meetings in Montpellier, 27-30 June 2005. Specific workshops were also organized in each Test case region especially to organize the data collection and the farm typology required for further implementation of Test case 1 on the Prototype 1 (18 months) of SEAMLESS-IF. This was completed by frequent email exchanges between the team leaders and the WP leader.

Ad. 2) Two important deliverables (PD6.1.1 and PD6.1.2) were produced by the team leaders and involved most of the WP6 participants. They were frequently used as working material during the WP1 meetings.

Involved participants 2. INRA Montpellier (Task leader, Test case 2 leader); 2. INRA Toulouse (Neste and Massif Central meso-leader); 22. UBONN (Test case 1 leader); 3. CIRAD (Mali meso-leader); 17.SGGW (Pyrzyce meso-leader).

Deviations The structure of the organization and the identification of team leaders were made at the beginning of the project and avoided major problems in coordination inside WP6. Exchange of questions/information about future data requirements by SEAMLESS-IF tools was not easy, especially with Poland and Mali and with the other WPs.

Corrective actions After a specific meeting in Poland (21-22 November, 2005) and more frequent interactions with Test Case leaders the data collection and farm typologies construction are on their way in all Test case regions.

WP1 was and will continue to be the major point of centralization of discussions with other WPs until the release of the 1st Prototype, 18 months.

Task forces with a leader have been identified around each tool of SEAMLESS-IF to be tested in WP6 and will serve both for internal coordination inside WP6 (in addition to TC and meso-levels leaders) and for interaction with the WP producing the tools.

WP 6 Task 6.2 Specification of SEAMLESS-IF application and scenario definitions

Objectives The overall objective of this task is to prepare the implementation of each Test case with each prototype of SEAMLESS-IF, and


Page 92 of 196

therefore the test of the various tools produced by other WPs:

1. Propose a scenario template and use it to define the baseline (Activity 6.2.3) and the policy scenario (Activity 6.2.4) for the two Test cases.

2. Identify the indicators to assess the impact of these scenarios on the multifunctionality of agriculture and its contribution to the sustainable development, using the indicator framework provided by WP2 (Activity 6.2.2).

3. Organize interactions with users (at EU and at regional levels) to complete the objectives 1 and 2 using the participatory approaches proposed by WP7 (Activity 6.2.1).

Status at starting point This task largely relied on the experience of UBONN on scenario definition and indicator calculation with the CAPRI model, but which could not be used until WP1 had defined the structure of SEAMLESS-IF and its implications for scenario and indicators characteristics. This process took around half of the first year.


Ad. 1) A general structure of the scenario template has been described in PD6.2.3 and a preliminary version was presented at the WP1 meeting in Bonn (3-5 October, 2005) and was used by WP5 to propose a first version of the scenario editor in the Demo Version of SEAMLESS-IF. Further development of the template will be made while implementing Test case 1 scenarios in the Prototype 1.

Ad. 2) A list of indicators adapted to Test case 1 and likely to be assessed by the models has been produced (PD6.2.1) and proposed to WP2 for checking of its consistency with their indicator framework and for addition of social indicators.

Ad. 3) In the DoW this objective was not linked to Test case 1 and Prototype 1, for practical reasons but also to leave WP7 enough time to organize the Users forum. The activity will start only in the middle of 2006 with Test case 2.

Involved participants 22. UBONN (Task leader); 2. INRA Montpellier and Toulouse; 17. SGGW; 30. CEMAGREF; 3. CIRAD

Deviations Ad. 1) The scientific and practical questions related to a scenario editor adapted to SEAMLESS-IF objectives and SeamFrame structure have not been identified in the DoW but appeared progressively important in WP1 meetings. To clarify the concept of a scenario in SEAMLESS-IF PD6.2.3 has been extended to cover both the definition of the structure of a scenario (which was the original objective) and to describe the components of the baseline and policy scenario on the example of Test case 1. This allowed WP1 to reach a consensus on the scenario structure but it made impossible to meet the deadlines for the detailed description of baseline (D6.5.2 due in month 11) and policy (D6.2.7 due in month 12) scenarios for Test case 1.

Ad. 2) The workflow between WP2 and WP6 as defined in the DoW was not possible to follow, because WP2 did not produce in time an indicator framework which could be used by WP6 to propose a list of indicators to be calculated in Test case 1 with the


Page 93 of 196

Prototype 1.

Ad. 3) Frequent discussions with WP7, but also with WP2 for indicator selection, showed that the objectives and methods to organise interactions with users (at EU level and in Test case regions) in the Test cases were not clear in the DoW. The relationships with the Users forum were also not specified. This should be done before starting the implementation of Test case 2 in the next 18 months.

Corrective actions Ad. 1) A significant communication effort was made through WP1 to reach a consensus among partners about what is a scenario in SEAMLESS-IF. As shown by the SAB report the objective has not been completely achieved, but PD6.2.3 and the annual symposium (February 2006) will be used to complete this effort. A new activity will be added in T6.2 (A6.4.2) and conducted in collaboration with WP1 and WP5 to implement and test a scenario editor in SeamFrame. The detailed definition of baseline and policy scenarios for Test case 1 will be completed during months 13 and 14 on the basis of the work already done for PD6.2.3 and of the results of the ongoing discussion with the SENSOR project for the base line scenario. It is therefore proposed to postpone the deadline for D6.2.5 and D6.2.7 to month 14.

Ad. 2) The selection process has been reversed for Prototype 1 and a list of indicators has been proposed by WP6 (in PD6.2.3) among those likely to be assessed by the CAPRI, FSSIM and APES models. This list must be assessed and completed now for social indicators by WP2. The WP2 indicator framework will be assessed for consistency with the indicators selected for the first prototype. It will be fully tested for indicators selection only with the second prototype. It is aimed to include an indicator calculator in SeamFrame already in Prototype 1.

Ad. 3) In collaboration with WP7, users groups are going to be identified at EU level (a subset from the User forum) and in each Test case region. They will be activated in the course of 2006 with the start of Test case 2, in order to test the participatory approaches and the indicator framework proposed by WP7 and WP2 to identify scenarios and indicators.

D6.2.5 and D6.2.7 are delayed and will be delivered month 14.

WP 6 Task 6.3 Scenario implementation and application

Objectives The overall objective of this task is to use SEAMLESS-IF and its tools to implement and compare baseline and policy scenarios in the two Test cases using the three prototypes:

1. Collection of additional data (in Test case regions only) which will be necessary for a “normal” use of SeamFrame, but which


Page 94 of 196

are not (yet) available in pan-European databases currently assembled in WP4. 2. Application of each prototype of SeamFrame and its tools (database, scenario editor, indicator calculator, models, graphic interface) to assess the impact of scenarios on the assessment indicators. 3. Application of qualitative tools not included in SeamFrame, but part of SEAMLESS-IF to define scenarios, select indicators and analyse the institutional compatibility of the policy.

Status at starting point Apart from objective 1, this task will start only with the implementation of Prototype 1. Objectives 2 and 3 were started to be addressed with a conceptual exercise to serve the requirements of WP1during the first year.


Ad. 1) Collection of additional data started already in the first year, in order to check that the farm typology proposed by WP4 will be compatible with the major characteristics of farming systems in the Test case regions. A preliminary check was made of the availability of data to parameterise FSSIM and APES in each region.

Ad. 2) On the basis of Test Case 1 a procedure to use SEAMLESS-IF for policy assessment was produced by WP6 (PD1.3.6) and used to improve the Demo Version of SEAMLESS-IF.

Ad. 3) Discussions with WP7 and WP2 have been conducted to identify which participatory and qualitative tools and methods will be available for testing by WP6 with Prototype 1 and how this could fit in the procedure proposed in PD1.3.6.

Involved participants 22. UBONN (Task leader for Test case 1); 2. INRA Montpellier (Task leader for Test case 2); 2. INRA Toulouse (Neste and Massif Central meso-leader); 3. CIRAD (Mali meso-leader); 17. SGGW (Pyrzyce meso-leader); 24. IAMM (Farm Typology and FSSIM); 30. CEMAGREF (Indicators and participatory methods).

Deviations Ad. 1) In comparison with the DoW this task started earlier for data collection, especially in the Neste region, which played a leading role in the identification of possible problems, but also of potential use of additional data for future testing of models and algorithms (e.g. spatialization of farms). The activity in Massif Central (not involved in Prototype 1) had to be slowed down in order to wait for stabilization of the typology criteria. The two other regions started later but data collection is now on its way.

Corrective actions Not needed at this stage.

Task 6.4 and Task 6.5: not yet started.


Page 95 of 196

3.1.7 WP7 – Participatory development, dissemination, training and use of SEAMLESS-IF



Apart from managing the internal work in WP7 there is an important work to manage the external contacts with prime user organizations (primarily EC) and other stakeholders.

Another task was to develop and submit a proposal for external funding of summer schools. The proposal (PD7.1.1) was submitted to the Marie Curie programme in May 2005, it passed all thresholds but was not selected for funding.

Meetings Two formal WP meetings held:

• Lund, Sweden, 27 January 2005

• Bonn, Germany, 5-6 October 2005

Involved participants 11. LU (leader), with collaboration from 1. WU (WP0)

Deviations none

Corrective actions none

WP 7 Task 7.2 Analysis of the implications within user organizations for the application of SEAMLESS-IF

Objectives Objective is to acquire knowledge on the potential prime user organizations of SEAMLESS-IF. The justification is three fold:

1. to better know who will be using the final results of SEAMLESS-IF and which personal resources different organizations have to engage in assessments;

2. to get feedback from potential user organizations on the development of the SEAMLESS-IF, and

3. to better understand the training needs and for whom and how the training material shall be developed.

Status at starting point The work started in Month 0. First phase completed in Month 5. Second phase (a more profound analysis) will start in Month 13.


The first phase was successfully completed and reported in PD7.2.1. The work gave us important insights about a number of potential user organizations inside the European Commission as well as other users. The series of lengthy interviews with key persons in DGs and other organizations gave information and contacts that were of great use when organizing meetings with potential users and in preparing for setting up a Users Forum. Information about the experiences made in the potential user organizations has also been spread to other WPs.

A first outline plan for the continued work (Month 13 – 28) has


Page 96 of 196

been compiled.

Involved participants 11. LU (Task leader), 25. UEVORA, 18. ILE ASVR, 17. SGGW

Deviations No deviations


WP 7 Task 7.3 Identification and application of a set of participatory methods

Objectives Objective is to identify, describe and develop protocols for a set of suggested participatory methods to be included in SEAMLESS-IF. The objective is also to assist other WPs (particularly WP6) to make use of the methods.

Status at starting point The work started in Month 0 and was successfully completed in month 6.


The work resulted in a comprehensive inventory and review of a wide range of participatory methods (D7.3.1). The range of methods covered many different kinds of demands on participatory methods. The organizing principle was according to two main axes: methods for 1. investigating the degree of consensus ↔ divergence and 2. applying them to normative actions ↔ informing citizens. The extensive knowledge about participatory methods that came out of D7.3.1 made it possible to choose and develop specific methods in order to make them applicable in SEAMLESS-IF, as it is presented in PD1.3.7.

Involved participants 30. CEMAGREF (Task leader); 11. LU

Deviations No deviations


WP 7 Task 7.4 Co-ordinating and co-organising dialogues with users and stakeholders for the entire project.

Objectives The objective is to co-ordinate and co-organize dialogues with users and stakeholders for the entire project. In specific instances this interaction should be direct between a specific WP and particular users or stakeholders, sometimes the dialogue is best performed through multilateral co-coordinated actions.

Status at starting point This work started in Month 0 and is continuously ongoing.


A 7.4.1 and A7.4.3 Stakeholder dialogue and User Forum:

A questionnaire with questions about potential users was sent to all WP-leaders in February which resulted in a list of names and key organizations ranging from DGs to research institutions. Based on this input and other investigations a series of interviews and informal discussions were held in Brussels with the aim of


Page 97 of 196

identifying people that would be suitable for the Users Forum. In addition to organizations located in Brussels, several interviews were also made at the EEA and the OECD. As a result of the initial contacts two information meetings for selected groups of staff were held at DG Agriculture (28 April 2005) and at DG Environment (17 June 2005).

In October two separate user meetings, with prime users and other users, were held in Brussels. Prime users represented by DGs Agriculture, Environment and Economic and Financial Affairs. At these occasions a developed version of the Animated Narrative Demo (AND2) was used as input for discussions. The feedback concerning a wide range of issues was relevant and useful.

As a result of the October user meetings, a core group of the User Forum has been identified and contacted. The participants represent DGs Agriculture, Environment, Economic and Financial Affairs, and Regional Policies, the EU parliament, JRC and EEA. The 2nd Users forum will be held in April 2006 Other users will be contacted again during fall 2006, when more working results of the project can be shown.

Other contacts taken with prime users during this first year concern two indicator selections and input on present and future important policy issues for SEAMLESS to consider. Further, the scenario definitions for Test case 2 will be discussed with a specially assigned group of DG users and stakeholders during month 13-20 of the project.

In order to get potential users involved in an informed and relevant dialogue with the project, it was decided to create an Animated Narrative Demo. Two versions, AND 1 and AND 2, have been developed by Lund staff mainly in WP5, with input from the WP's 0, 2, 7 and the ULO.

The first SEAMLESS external newsletter was completed at the end of October. As the newsletter is aimed for a broad SEAMLESS external audience the topics were chosen to give a general introduction to the project followed by more specific articles. The newsletter has been sent to international stakeholders as well as national interest organizations. As a result a number of organizations have contacted us.

Involved participants 11. LU (Task leader), 1. WU, 22. UBONN, 2. INRA

Deviations none



WP 7 Task 7.6 Training on how to use SEAMLESS-IF and monitoring of user responses.


Page 98 of 196

Objectives The main objective is to provide training on how to apply SEAMLESS-IF to agricultural and environmental planning to a range of different potential users. Another aim is also to provide internal training on how to use the SEAMLESS products.

Status at starting point Training to external users will not start until month 36. Internal training was supposed to have started by month 6 but has been postponed to month 15.


A proposal for funds for external summer schools was submitted but not funded (see Task 7.1). This means that plans for arranging external summer schools had to be abandoned. Internal training, primarily to young scientists will be arranged with whatever limited funds (1 person month) are available within the SEAMLESS project. The first comprehensive occasion will be arranged after the release of the Demo Version and important parts of Prototype 1 of SEAMLESS-IF (March 2006). The training will focus on how to use the model train that will be included in Prototype 1. It was agreed with the EC to submit D7.6.4 no later than month 24.

Apart from this comprehensive training, several smaller sessions have been organised with WP3 and WP5 participants in June, July, September, October and November, in which mostly young SEAMLESS scientists were trained in the new software and modelling approaches (see WP3, Task 3.1 for details of these workshops).

Involved participants 11. LU (Task leader), 1. WU, 18. ILE ASVR,

Deviations ‘Summer’ school postponed to month 15; D7.6.4 will be delivered no later than month 24 (agreed with EC).

Corrective actions Idem

3.2 List of deliverables

Those in yellow marking have not been completed and are not available yet, due to delay.

Deliverable no.

Deliverable title Work packa ge no.

Date due

Actual/ fore-cast delivery date

Date sent to EC

Date answer from EC

Estim. person months

Lead contrac-tor

D0.1.2 Activity and financial report for year 1 WP0 31-dec-05 10-feb-05

6 WU

D0.1.3 An updated financial plan for 18 months WP0 31-dec-05 10-feb-05

2 WU

D0.1.4 Gender action plan and its monitoring via progress reports. WP0 30-apr-05 21-sep-05 21-sep-05

17-oct-05 1 WU

D0.3.3 SEAMLESS flyer WP0 31-mar-05 31-mar-05 18-apr-05 23-aug-05 1 WU


Page 99 of 196

D0.3.4 SEAMLESS web site and portal (intranet) WP0 31-mar-05 31-mar-05 18-apr-05 23-aug-05 4 WU

PD0.1.1

Meeting agendas and minutes of the Board, Advisory Board, Users Forum and General Assembly WP0 31-dec-05 31-dec-05

6 WU

PD0.2.1

Operational planning and monitoring system with guidelines WP0 30-apr-05 30-apr-05

5 WU

PD0.2.2 Project progress database WP0 30-apr-05 30-apr-05 4 WU

PD0.2.3 Install the Scientific Advisory Board and arrange meetings WP0 30-apr-05 10-oct-05

3 WU

PD0.3.1

Development, evaluation and update of the plan for using and disseminating knowledge every 12 months WP0

31-dec-05

31-dec-05

See Annex A this report

2 WU

PD0.3.5

SEAMLESS promotion plan raising public participation and awareness (including side events conferences) – first version WP0

31-dec- 05

31-dec-05

See Annex A this report

1 WU

PD0.3.8 Install the Users Forum and arrange meetings WP0

31-mar-05 30-oct-05

2 LU

D1.3.9 Demo version of SEAMLESS-IF. WP1

31-dec-05 25-jan-06

13-feb-06

4.1 WU

PD1.2.1

Report about 1) the developed approach for conceptualising agricultural systems and 2) the derived conceptual framework of the agricultural systems, including interactions with other economic sectors and systems to be captured by SEAMLESS-IF – definition WP1

31-mar-05 31-may-05

8.3 WU

PD1.2.2

Report about requirements for SEAMLESS-IF by prime and other users and researchers. WP1 31-may-05

10-jun-05

Jointly with PD7.2.1

4 LU

PD1.3.1

Report of attributes of the system(s) for which indicators and threshold values are developed. WP1 31-jul-05 09-nov-05

5.2 LU

PD1.3.2

Report that specifies quantitative models of SEAMLESS-IF and procedures for up- and downscaling. WP1 31-jul-05 22-dec-05

15 IAMM

PD1.3.3 Report that specifies databases of SEAMLESS-IF. WP1 31-jul-05 01-sep-05

4.8 FLD

PD1.3.4 Concept of SeamFrame WP1 31-jul-05 22-oct-05

5.2 IDSIA-SUPSI

PD1.3.5

Report specifying indicators and methods for qualitative pre- and post-model analyses. WP1 31-jul-05 09-nov-05

5.2 LU

PD1.3.6

Report of a procedure for application of SEAMLESS-IF to concrete policy and innovation issues. WP1 31-jul-05 23-oct-05

2.6 INRA

PD1.3.7 Report specifying complementary participatory

WP1 31-jul-05 17-oct-05 1.7 LU


Page 100 of 196

methods for SEAMLESS-IF.

PD1.3.8

Report about the methodological concepts of SEAMLESS-IF with specific information about the selected 1) indicators at various scales, 2) quantitative models and methodologies for up- and downscaling, 3) databases including their availability and structure WP1 31-oct-05 30-apr-06

8 WU

PD2.2.1

A review of research done in the area of indicators of sustainability (environmental, economic and social) particularly in association with agriculture and agroforestry. WP2 31-may-05 11-nov-05

7.3 INRA

PD2.2.2

Internal document to be supplied to WP1 and WP6 encompassing: gaps for which indicators ought to be developed, a decision on thematic (environmental, economic and social indicators) to be considered in the prototype 1; a decision on an approach to set up WP2 31-may-05 09-dec-05

2 UNEW

PD2.3.1

A report on results of the Multagri project concerning indicators of multifunctionality and their relevance for SEAMLESS-IF. WP2

30-jun-05 08-dec-05

3 CEMAGREF

PD2.4.1

A report reviewing the research done in the area of institutional indicators of sustainability particularly in association with agricultural and agro-forestry systems, with specific reference to developing an operational approach for dealing with these is WP2

30-jun-05 30-jun-05

7.4 UBER

PD2.6.1

A report on the needs of stakeholders with respect to assessment of indicators (multi-criteria approach) WP2

31-aug-05 14-dec-05

3.3 CEMAGREF

D3.2.18

Library of model components for process simulation relevant to production activities, prototype versions (month 12), version compliant with the ontology and the technical specifications of WP5 WP3

31-dec-05 31-mar-06

5 CRA

D3.6.5 Algorithms to start iteratively CAPRI and FARM-INT WP3

31-dec-05 30-jun-06

4 UBONN

D3.8.1

Report about key developing country features to be addressed in the global modelling WP3

31-aug-05 26-sep-05

9-nov-05

20-jan-06 3 CIRAD

PD3.2.1

Model components: SOIL_water, SOIL_erosion, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 16-jan-06

6 CRA

PD3.2.2

Model components: SOIL_carbon-nitrogen, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 15-jan-06

6 UNIABDN


Page 101 of 196

PD3.2.3

Model components: SOIL_structure, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 15-jan-06

6 IAMM

PD3.2.4 Model components: CROPS, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 20-jan-06

10 WU

PD3.2.5

Model components: AGROFORESTRY, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 31-jul-06

8 INRA

PD3.2.6 Model components: GRASSES, data types, first version version WP3

31-dec-05 15-jan--06

8 INRA

PD3.2.7

Model components: VINEYARDS, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 28-feb-06

9 INRA

PD3.2.8

Model components: ORCHARDS, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 30-apr-06

9 INRA

PD3.2.9

Model components: PESTICIDES, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 28-feb-06

5 CRA

PD3.2.10

Model components: LIVESTOCK, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05

Moved to Task 3.3 and integrated in

new PD

9 PRI

PD3.2.11

Model components: LIVESTOCK_management, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05


new PD

6 UEDIN

PD3.2.12

Model components: WEATHER, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 15-oct-05

6 CRA

PD3.2.13 Model components: WEEDS, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05


new PD

4 PRI

PD3.2.14

Model components: MANAGEMENT_data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 28-feb-06

7 CRA

PD3.2.15

Model components: MANAGEMENT_models, data types, first version WP3

31-dec-05 28-feb-06

7 CRA

PD3.2.16 Application: APES installation, first version WP3

31-dec-05 31-jan-06

7 CRA

PD3.2.17

Application: Instances of the Agricultural Production and Externalities Simulator (APES) targeted at use in FSSIM and WP6 WP3

31-dec-05 20-feb-06

6 CRA

PD3.3.1

Review of state of the art concerning bio-economic integrated farm model WP3

30-apr-05 01-may-05

3 WU

PD3.3.2.1

A generic template with a limited number of variants to model major farm types across Europe WP3

30-apr-05 30-apr-05

7 IAMM

PD3.4.1

Definition of the sample of farms/regions that will be used for FSSIM instances WP3

30-apr-05

Part of PD1.3.2

3 IAMM

PD3.5.1.1 Working paper on the definition

of the CAPRI core modelling WP3

30-apr-05 30-apr-05

1 UBONN


Page 102 of 196

system and the interfaces to other components in SEAMLESS-IF

PD3.5.1

Working paper on the definition of the CAPRI core modelling system and the interfaces to other components in SEAMLESS-IF WP3

31-dec-05 10-jan-06

1 UBONN

PD3.5.2.1

Meta-Data definition for output and input data, used or generated by CAPRI WP3

30-apr-05 30-apr-05

1 UBONN

PD3.6.1

Working paper on functional forms linkages between farm level and market level models WP3

31-aug-05 31-oct-05

2 NLH

PD3.6.2

Definition of a common product list for CAPRI and FARM-INT WP3

31-dec-05 23-jan-06

1 UBONN

PD3.6.6.1

Working paper – literature review of approaches to estimate structural change WP3

31-dec-05 31-dec-05

1 UBONN

PD3.6.7 Time series analyses for number of farms in typology WP3

31-dec-05 31-jan-06

3 UBONN

PD3.7.1

Model component for environmental issues, data-type, prototype WP3

30-jun-06 31-may-06

3 ZALF

PD3.7.2 Model component for visual attributes, data-type, prototype WP3

30-jun-06 31-may-06

12 INRA

PD3.7.3

Model component for biological diversity, data-type, prototype WP3

30-jun-06 31-may-06

3 ALTERRA

PD3.8.2 Implement key features into the GTAP model WP3

31-dec-05

Merged with PD3.8.2

6 LEI

PD3.8.3 Implement key features into CAPRI model WP3

31-dec-05 30-sep-06

6 UBONN

PD4.2.1 Guidelines for populating the demo version knowledge base WP4

31-aug-05 15-nov-05

3 UVM

PD4.3.1

Documents on metadata of environmental data selected to be implemented in the knowledge base WP4

31-aug-05 15-nov-05

3 JRC

PD4.3.2 A spatial framework for environmental data WP4

31-aug-05 20-feb-06

2

ALTERRA

PD4.3.3

Regional typologies of ecological and biophysical contexts, with routines for calculating environmental indicators WP4

31-dec-05 28-feb-06

5 JRC

PD4.4.1

Documents on metadata of farming system data selected to be implemented in the knowledge base WP4

31-aug-05 15-nov-05

3 FLD

PD4.4.2 A multidimensional farming system typology WP4 31-oct-05 19-jan-06

4 FLD

PD4.4.3

Regional typologies of farming systems contexts, with routines for calculating indicators related to farming systems WP4

31-dec-05 15-feb-06

3 FLD

PD4.5.1 Documents on metadata of socio-economic data selected to

WP4 31-aug-

15-nov-05 3 LEI


Page 103 of 196

be implemented in the knowledge base

05

PD4.5.2

Regional typologies of socio-economic contexts, with routines for calculating socio-economic indicators WP4

31-dec-05 15-feb-06

4 LEI

PD4.6.1

Documents on metadata of global data selected to be implemented in the knowledge base WP4

31-aug-05 15-nov-05

3 LEI

PD4.7.1

Protocols for spatial analysis to be implemented in the domain editor developed in WP5 WP4 31-oct-05 15-feb-06

9 Alterra

D5.2.4 Final Analysis of SeamFrame requirements document WP5

30-nov-05 31-may-06

8 LU

D5.3.1 Overall architectural design, document WP5 31-may-05 31-may-05

12-jul-05 03-aug-05 4 IDSIA-SUPSI

PD5.2.1 Model and data requirements WP5 28-feb-

05 31-may-05

4 LU

PD5.2.2 Modelling Framework requirements WP5

28-feb-05 31-may-05

4

IDSIA-SUPSI

PD5.2.3 Revision of D5.2.1 and D5.2.2: Consensus document WP5 31-may-05 31-may-06

10 LU

PD5.3.2 Design of domain base and domain editor, document WP5

30-jun-05 05-jul-05

8 UVM

PD5.3.3 Design of model Base and model builder, document WP5 31-oct-05 31-jan-06

8

IDSIA-SUPSI

PD5.3.4 Design of processing tools, document WP5 31-oct-05 31-jan-06

8 PRI

PD5.3.5 Design of modelling environment, document WP5

30-nov-05 30-mar-06

10

Simulistics

PD5.3.6 Design of processing environment, document WP5

30-nov-05 28-feb-06

8

IDSIA-SUPSI

PD5.3.7

Design of end-user applications and guidelines, document and GUI mock-up WP5

31-dec-05 28-feb-06

8 ALTERRA

D6.2.5

To WP3-5 Documentation of reference scenario for Test case 1 WP6 30-nov-05 28-feb-06

4 UBONN

D6.2.7 To WP3-5 Documentation of policy scenario for Test case 1 WP6 31-dec-05 28-feb-06

5 UBONN

PD6.1.1

Report on the major characteristics of scenarios and agricultural systems at meso-levels that will be studied in Test cases 1 and 2. WP6 28-feb-05 01-apr-05

2.5 UBONN

PD6.1.2 Major characteristics of scenarios for test case 2 WP6 30-apr-05 21-sep-05

2.5 INRA

PD6.2.1 Report on the identification of indicators for Test case 1 WP6 30-sep-05 04-nov-05

8 UBONN

PD6.2.3

Provision of templates for the definition of reference and policy scenarios for Test case 1 WP6 30-sep-05 01-dec-05

3.5 UBONN

D7.3.1

Participatory methods, guidelines and good practice guidance to be applied throughout the project to

WP7 31-may-05 10-jun-05

9

CEMAGREF


Page 104 of 196

enhance problem definition, co learning, synthesis and dissemination

13-jul-05

23-aug-05

D7.4.3

Annual conferences with partners, users, scientists and other stakeholders WP7 31-dec-05 22-feb-06

3 LUEAB

D7.6.4

Summer schools for SEAMLESS IP internal capacity building WP7 30-jun-05 31-dec-06

1 LU

PD7.1.1

Plans for summer schools related to capacity building within the SEAMLESS IP will be worked out to be submitted for funding by appropriate organisations WP7 30-jun-05 20-jun-05

0.5 LU

PD7.2.1.1

First report on organisational mapping of key user organisations WP7 31-may-05

10-jun-05

Jointly with PD1.2.2

3 LU

3.3 List of milestones

Milestone no.

Milestone title Work-packa-ge no.

Date due Actual/fore-cast delivery date

Lead contractor

M0.1.1 Evaluation and update of the gender action plan WP0 30-apr-05 21-sep-05 WU

M0.1.2 An updated financial and implementation plan for 18 months WP0 31-dec-05 01-feb-06 WU

M0.1.3 Activity and financial reports WP0 31-dec-05 01-feb-06 WU

M0.2.1 Progress reports about tasks and timely provision of deliverables and milestones WP0 31-mar-05 31-mar-05 WU

M0.2.1 Progress reports about tasks and timely provision of deliverables and milestones WP0 30-jun-05 30-jun-05 WU

M0.2.1 Progress reports about tasks and timely provision of deliverables and milestones WP0 30-sep-05 30-sep-05 WU

M0.2.1 Progress reports about tasks and timely provision of deliverables and milestones WP0 31-dec-05 31-dec-05 WU

M0.2.2

Extensive Progress reports about Evaluation tasks and timely provision of deliverables and milestones WP0 01-jul-05 01-jul-05 WU

M0.2.2

Extensive Progress reports about Evaluation tasks and timely provision of deliverables and milestones WP0 31-dec-05 31-dec-05 WU

M0.3.1

Development, evaluation and update of plan for using and dissemination of knowledge WP0 31-dec-05 31-dec-05 WU

M0.3.2

Development, evaluation and update of plan for raising public participation and awareness WP0 31-dec-05 31-dec-05 WU


Page 105 of 196

M1.2.1

Determine boundaries, major components and structure of the agricultural system and the user requirements WP1 31-mar-05 31-mar-05 WU

M1.2.2

Determine user groups and requirements for SEAMLESS-IF by prime users and researchers WP1 31-may-05 20-jun-05 LU

M1.3.1 Select indicators, data bases, quantitative models/methods, technical capacities WP1 30-sep-05 30-sep-05 LU

M1.4.1 Define specifications for first prototype of SEAMLESS-IF WP1 31-dec-05 31-dec-05 WU

M2.1.1

Implement PD1.3.8 – A report on the methodological concept of SEAMLESS IF. WP2 30-nov-05 31-mar-06 LU

M2.2.1

Based on literature review and in relation with WP1, decide on ‘policy-relevant’ indicators, and determine gap areas where indicators ought to be developed WP2 31-may-05 14-dec-05 UNEW

M2.6.1

Define areas and dimensions of sustainability for which multiple indicators are relevant/necessary WP2 31-aug-05 14-dec-05 CEMA

GREF

M3.2.1

Library of model components for process simulation relevant to production activities, prototype versions, version compliant with the ontology and the technical specifications of WP5 WP3 31-dec-05 30-jun-06 CRA

M3.3.1 Review of state of the art concerning bio-economic integrated farm model WP3 30-apr-05 30-apr-05 WU

M3.3.2

A generic template with a limited number of variants to model major farm types across Europe WP3 30-apr-05 30-apr-05 IAMM

M3.4.1

Definition of the sample of farms/regions that will be used for FARM-INT models WP3 30-apr-05 15-jan-06 IAMM

M3.5.1

Working paper on the definition of the CAPRI core modelling system and the interfaces to other components in SEAMLESS-IF WP3 30-apr-05 30-apr-05 UBONN

M3.5.1

Working paper on the definition of the CAPRI core modelling system and the interfaces to other components in SEAMLESS-IF WP3 31-dec-05 31-dec-05 UBONN

M3.5.2 Meta-Data definition for output and input data, used or generated by CAPRI WP3 30-apr-05 30-apr-05 UBONN

M3.6.1

Working paper on functional forms linkages between farm level and market level models WP3 30-apr-05 30-apr-05 NLH

M3.6.1

Working paper on functional forms linkages between farm level and market level models WP3 31-aug-05 31-oct-05 NLH

M3.6.2 Definition of a common product list for CAPRI and FARM-INT WP3 31-dec-05 31-dec-05 UBONN

M3.7.1 Model component for environmental

WP3 31-dec-05 31-mar-06 INRA


Page 106 of 196

issues, data-type, prototype

M3.7.2 Model component for visual attributes, data-type, prototype WP3 30-sep-05 31-mar-06 INRA

M3.7.3 Model component for biological diversity, data-type, prototype WP3 31-dec-05 31-mar-06 INRA

M3.8.1

Report about key developing country features to be addressed in the global modelling WP3 31-aug-05 09-dec-05 CIRAD

M3.8.2 Implement key features into the GTAP model WP3 31-dec-05 30-jun-06 LEI

M3.8.3 Implement key features into CAPRI model WP3 31-dec-05 30-jun-06 UBONN

M4.1.1

Joint workshop with the FP6 project Sensor exploring joint interests in data collection and handling WP4 30-jun-05 30-jun-05 FLD

M4.1.2 Project workshop (WP1 and WP4) clarifying design of knowledge base WP4 30-jun-05 30-jun-05 FLD

M4.3.1

Decision on which environmental data to implement in knowledge base beta-version WP4 31-aug-05 15-oct-05 JRC

M4.4.1

Consultation of WP3 and WP2 partners to define data requirements including requirements to farming system typology WP4 30-jun-05 30-jun-05 FLD

M4.4.2 Draft typology of farming systems to be presented for project partners WP4 31-aug-05 15-nov-05 FLD

M4.5.1

Decision on which socio-economic data to implement in knowledge base beta-version WP4 31-aug-05 15-oct-05 LEI

M4.6.1

Decision on which global data to implement in knowledge base beta-version WP4 31-aug-05 15-oct-05 LEI

M4.7.1 Draft of spatial protocols for combining and up-/down –scaling of data WP4 31-aug-05 15-feb-06 LEI

M5.2.1 Delivery of data and model requirements WP5 28-feb-05 30-sep-05 LU

M5.2.2 Delivery of modelling frameworks requirements WP5 28-feb-05 31-may-05 IDSIA

M5.2.3 Delivery of consensus document on requirements WP5 31-may-05 31-may-06 LU

M5.2.4 Delivery of final analysis of requirements document WP5 30-nov-05 31-may-06 LU

M5.3.1 Delivery and discussion of document on overall design Wp5 31-may-05 31-may-05 IDSIA

M5.3.2 Delivery of the design of the domain editor WP5 30-jun-05 31-jul-05 UVM

M5.3.3 Delivery of the design of the model builder WP5 31-oct-05 31-jan-06 IDSIA

M5.3.4 Delivery of the design of the processing tools WP5 31-oct-05 31-jan-06 PRI

M5.3.5 Delivery of the design of the modelling environment WP5 30-nov-05 30-mar-06 IDSIA


Page 107 of 196

M5.3.6 Delivery of the design of the processing environment WP5 30-nov-05 28-feb-06 IDSIA

M5.3.7 Deliver the prototype design document and GUI mock-up WP5 31-dec-05 28-feb-06

ALTERRA

M6.2.4

Specification and Development of baseline and policy scenario for Test case 1 WP6 31-dec-05 28-feb-06 UBONN

M6.2.5

Start of the definition of the scenarios to be implemented in Test case 2, in interaction with users and stakeholders WP6 31-dec-05 28-feb-06 INRA

M7.1.1 Capacity building within SEAMLESS-IP WP7 31-jul-05 24-nov-05 LU

M7.2.1

Analysis of implications for user organisations of SEAMLESS-IF applications WP7 31-oct-05 31-oct-05 LU

M7.3.1 Establishment of participatory methods guidelines to be used by all WPs. WP7 31-may-05 31-may-05

CEMA GREF


Page 109 of 196

4 Consortium management

4.1 Consortium management tasks and achievements

4.1.1 Objectives, deliverables and contractors


Task T0.1: Overall co-ordination

• Maintaining contact with the Commission and co-ordinating administrative and financial reporting;

• Receiving payments from the Commission and administering the distribution within the consortium;

• Preparing, agreeing and monitoring contractual arrangements with the project partners;

• Managing all activities of the project consortium (such as meetings of the Board, Advisory Board, Users Forum and General Assembly; PD0.1.1);

• Co-ordinating of partners.

• Initiating actions decided by the Board;

• Promoting gender equality within the project (D0.1.4).

The contractors that were involved: WU, LEI, NUI Galway (Gender Task Expert), and all partners via Board and/or GA.

Task T0.2: Scientific co-ordination, planning and monitoring system

• Setting up an operational planning and monitoring system (PD0.2.1, PD0.2.2);

• Evaluating all deliverables;

• Installation of the Scientific Advisory Board and arrangement of first meeting (PD0.2.3, see Annex B).

The contractors involved: WU and LEI.

Task T0.3: Knowledge management activities

• Setting up the internal communication, monitoring and facilitation mechanisms to facilitate the collaboration of over 150 scientists from 30 partners in a very ambitious project with a common final deliverable;

• Development of the plan for using and disseminating knowledge and raising public awareness (PD0.3.1.1);

• Development of SEAMLESS dissemination and promotion material (D0.3.3);

• Development and maintenance of SEAMLESS website (D0.3.4);

• Development and maintenance of SEAMLESS portal (D0.3.4);


Page 110 of 196

• Organisation of kick-off meeting and 1st Annual Symposium with WP7;

• Establishing dialogues with users and installing a Users Forum with WP7 (PD0.3.8).

The contractors involved are: WU, LEI and LU (User Liaison Officer).

4.1.2 General management aspects

The project largely invested in establishing a stimulating working atmosphere in the consortium with 30 partners and over 150 researchers through an open, democratic, but decisive leadership. Communication via meetings, web-portal, email, internal newsletter, phone calls and videoconferencing are crucial and the management of the project has invested substantial resources in it.

Formal rules and constraints within the consortium are arranged in the Consortium Agreement which has been signed by all partners at the start of the project.

Scientific and financial management is entirely deliverable oriented: all output converges into deliverables and all virtually all finances are directly related to deliverables. Two types of deliverables are distinguished: project deliverables (PDs) which are internal and not submitted to the EC, and deliverables (D) which are submitted to the EC. Both types of deliverables are submitted through the WP-leader to the Co-ordination. The Co-ordination makes them available in a library on the web-portal and takes care of an internal evaluation and interaction with the responsible persons on revisions (see Section 4.1.9).

The project planning and monitoring system is fully web-based (connected to the web-portal) and assembles the information about WPs and their progress in terms of deliverables, Partners and the Finances of the project. Core information is accessible to all participants; more specific information is only accessible only to selected persons. The system provides the information for corrective measures.

Key to the project management are the WP-leaders. During the proposal writing a leader and co-leader(s) were identified for each WP. The following principles guided the selection procedure: representing different partners and countries, representing different disciplines, and, importantly, personal qualities as scientist and as leader. WP leadership is a personal qualification and not automatically ‘owned’ by an institution. The leader and co-leader represent different and complementary disciplines. Table 4.1 provides the overview of WP-leaders and co-leaders per December 2005. Some changes have been reported in Section 2.3; in January 2006 the leadership of WP3 has changed. In case of leadership changes the Co-ordinator proposes candidates, and decides in consultation with the Board.

The Board is the main decision making body of the project. The Board is chaired by the Co-ordinator and includes the Deputy co-ordinator, all WP-leaders (7) and a co-opted Board member (Marcello Donatelli).

Daily management of the project takes place in Wageningen. The Management Team (all from WU plus the Deputy co-ordinator from LEI; when needed the User Liaison Officer joins meetings in person or via internet) meets weekly.


Page 111 of 196

Table 4.1 WP leaders (partner acronym) and their discipline, as per December 2005.

WP Leader (partner)

Discipline Co-leader (partner)

Discipline

WP0 Martin van Ittersum and Co-ordinator (WU)

Agro-ecological modelling

Floor Brouwer and Deputy co-ordinator (LEI)

Agricultural economy

WP1 Frank Ewert (WU)

Systems analysis

Alfons Oude Lansink (WU)


WP2 Johanna Alkan Olsson (LU)

Sociology Christian Bockstaller (INRA)

Agronomy

WP3 Guillermo Flichman (IAMM)


Marcello Donatelli (CRA)

Environmental modelling and software

Eirik Romstad (NLH)


WP4 Erling Andersen (FLD)

Agriculture and spatial planning

Kees van Diepen (ALTERRA)

Geo-infor-mation and land evaluation

WP5 Tamme van der Wal (ALTERRA)

IT and Geo-information

Andrea Rizzoli (IDSIA)

IT and environmental modelling

Mats Svensson (LU)

Environmental modelling

WP6 Jacques Wery (INRA)

Agronomy Thomas Heckelei (UBONN)

Agricultural Economy

WP7 Lennart Olsson (LU)

Physical geography

User Liaison Officer: Liisa Martinson/Sara Brogaard (LU)

Physical geography

4.1.3 Overall co-ordination

4.1.3.1 Contract and contacts with EC Though the project started per January 1, 2005, the signed contract with the EC was received March 11, 2005; the first advance payment was received March 20, 2005. This delay, which was unforeseen, has caused a delay in recruitment of personnel with several partners that requested a signed contract first.

The contract has been amended in April due to withdrawal of TEAGASC (Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority) which informed the Coordinator in January of serious financial and personnel changes due to a re-organisation and hence the request to resign. Financial problems of Simulistics have also resulted in a request to resign from the project. Since the expertise of Simulistics is considered to be essential to the project (to WP5 in particular) it is proposed to keep Simulistics on board as a Third party to Lund University. A contract amendment to this end has been submitted recently (January 2006).

The Co-ordinator has been in frequent contract with the Project officer of the EC (Dr. Daniel Deybe) through emails, phone calls and meetings in Brussels. The Project officer participated in meetings with Users (April and October, 2005) and he participated in two WP1 meetings


Page 112 of 196

(June and November, 2005) of the project, including the meeting with the Scientific Advisory Board.

4.1.3.2 Financial management Financial management in the project is driven by the guidelines of the EC and supported by the financial part of the portal-based monitoring system that has been developed (see Section 4.1.4.1). Finances in SEAMLESS are related to deliverables wherever possible. The monitoring system has been designed to report progress on and contributions to deliverables and to claim and justify expenses per Task and WP, based on contributions to deliverables. Information for reporting is derived from the monitoring system and summarized and presented to justify 1. expenses per WP and partner, and 2. deviations from budgets.

An overview of financial expenses per WP as a % of the budget for year 1 is provided in Section 4.1.6. 82.5% (according to the Consortium Agreement) of the 18 months advance payment has been forwarded to all parties in month 4; the remaining 17.5% will be released upon approval by the Co-ordinator of all technical and financial reports and costs statements and the Project’s forward plan relating to a specific partner that year. For full details of the finances, see the Financial reporting.

4.1.3.3 Board and General Assembly meetings The Board is the main body responsible for overall project management to ensure coherence of different work packages and effective co-ordination of the project as a whole. At least four meetings of the Board are scheduled per year. In 2005, the Board has met six times to discuss strategic issues on the implementation of the project. Agenda of, information for and minutes of the meetings are made by the Co-ordinator. Most agenda points are prepared through a memo, sent to the Board members well in advance (1-2 weeks) of the meeting. Decisions are made and actions are identified during these meetings to follow up (who and when). Items on the agenda were, for example, plan for use and dissemination of knowledge, press releases, contact with related projects, Scientific Advisory Board, changes in WP leadership, User Forum, monitoring and planning system, software quality and maintenance, related projects and training. A list of the main topics discussed and/or decided during the Board meetings in 2005 is provided in Table 4.3.

The General Assembly is composed of the authorised representatives of each of the SEAMLESS participants, and the Co-ordinator and the Deputy co-ordinator of SEAMLESS-IP. It meets at least once a year to review overall project progress and decide on any major changes in the IP (e.g. change in consortium partnership). The General Assembly has met during the kick-off meeting of the SEAMLESS-IP on January 28, 2005 in Lund, Sweden. The items on the agenda were its procedure for decision making, contract issues, plan for use and dissemination of knowledge, and the monitoring and planning system. The next General Assembly will be organized February 21, 2006 during the Annual Symposium of the SEAMLESS project in Brixen, Italy.

4.1.3.4 Gender Action Issues The Gender Action Plan (GAP; D0.1.4) was approved by the EC in the third Quarter 2005, and is formally operational since then. A Gender Task Expert has been appointed (Lorna Ryan, NUI Galway), who is responsible for implementation of the Gender Action Plan and


Page 113 of 196

reporting, supported by WP0. The GAP is being implemented as planned; however, due to the delay in commencment some areas will require corrective actions in the coming period. SEAMLESS has met the targets set for 2005 in respect of women’s participation. Issues relating to gender in research content are also being progressively addressed across Work Packages.

The global aim of the SEAMLESS Gender Action Plan is to ‘grow’ a culture of gender awareness within and across the project through the implemenation of a gender equality strategy (i.e. to mainstream gender equality). The Gender objectives of SEAMLESS are the following:

• To promote the equal participation of women and men at all project levels;

• To promote the engagement with gender issues in the research carried out; and

• To link women researchers in SEAMLESS with networks of women researchers.

Two categories of actions are undertaken in pursuance of these objectives: (a) those which aim to promote women’s scientists’ participation in SEAMLESS research and (b) those which aim to promote the engagement with gender issues in the research undertaken. Assessing the progress of SEAMLESS towards the attainment of these objectives is undertaken by monitoring the composition of the projects’ workforce and recording the processes and issues arising in respect of the engagement, in theoretical and methodological, of gender issues in the research activities of the project.

There are two instruments used by SEAMLESS in pursuance of the objectives of the GAP: (a) Partner monitoring and (b) a Gender Action Review Report, which is to be completed on a biannual basis.

The Gender Action Plan has been discussed in the Board several times, and the Gender Task Expert gave a presentation of plans for implementation in a Board meeting in November (month 11). She will also give a presentation in the 1st Annual Symposium in February 2006. For more information on Gender action plan and monitoring and the results for 2005, see Annex D.

4.1.4 Scientific co-ordination, planning and monitoring system

4.1.4.1 Planning and monitoring system The management developed a Project monitoring system to monitor and communicate progress, delays and corrective measures per project deliverable, work package and partner. This system also contains the full financial details and management of the project. This information can largely be viewed by all participants in the project, but the rights for editing are restricted to WP leaders and partner representatives. All project reporting is organised via this Monitoring system. Guiding principle is that it allows a user-friendly reporting in a fixed format. The reporting is concise (mainly bullet-wise or short texts), and easily accessible by project participants.

The SEAMLESS monitoring system is a web-based management tool that enables users to quickly assess the overall status of the project and deviations from the technical annex (DoW). The status is strongly related to the generated output of the project. Within the project’s output, deliverables, milestones and literature are identified as key indicators for the overall progress. These indicators are monitored on three different levels: Work Package (WP) Monitoring, Partner Monitoring and the Financial Monitoring.


Page 114 of 196

The ‘WP Monitoring’ focuses on the scientific output per task. The monitoring of a WP is done on a three months interval and is the responsibility of the WP leader. The monitoring of a milestone focuses on when a milestone has been met and what the conclusion has been. A reference to a deliverable or minutes on the portal suffices as a conclusion. Literature related to a task is collected via a separate on-line reference database that can be linked to local reference programs like EndNote. The progress of each deliverable is categorised into four stadiums: not started yet, in progress, delayed, and completed. Apart from the stadium ‘not started yet’, each deliverable is monitored in more detail. The WP leader estimates the delivery date, updates the lead participant, indicates the percentage ready and provides a qualitative assessment of the progress and any foreseen bottlenecks over the last three months.

The ‘Partner Monitoring’ has a predominant focus on the efforts made. The monitoring per partner is done every six months and is the responsibility of the partner representative. Each partner has to update a list of deliverables where he is involved in. This list is based upon the 18 months budget. For each deliverable where a partner is involved in, the partner has to indicate whether or not he is responsible for this deliverable, what his activities for the last six months were, if there were any deviation from the technical annex, what the planning for the next six months will be, and which researchers are working on this deliverable. This information provides the project management indicators to assess the progress and communication within the project. Deviations between the WP and ‘Partner Monitoring’ are to be handled by the project management individually. Each partner is requested to provide gender information as requested in annex 14 of the Instructions for Project Reporting in FP6. Annual Report. Knowledge dissemination is monitored via the earlier mentioned reference database and the portal. On the WP7 portal, one finds lists that contain information about external contacts, press releases and newly developed teaching material. Partner representatives are requested to update these lists during the partner monitoring round. By storing dissemination information on the portal and not in the monitoring system, the information becomes easier accessible for all project participants.

The financial justification per partner is done during the financial monitoring round. Each year, partner representatives are requested to state the actual costs per task in which they are involved in. The list of tasks per partner is generated automatically from the ‘Partner Monitoring’, meaning that each partner has to complete the ‘Partner Monitoring’ first before they can state any costs. The actual costs are categorised into four main categories: personnel costs, material costs, subcontracting costs and receipts. These categories are, apart from ‘receipts’, subdivided in direct and indirect costs, depending on the cost model of a partner. For costs that are linked to several tasks or to a task that has no measured output, e.g. management, the system provides an option to allocate these costs per WP. AC partners have to estimate the costs and person months for their input of own staff. The actual costs are aggregated per WP and the partner representative is requested to justify the actual costs versus the 48 month budget per WP. The project management checks the stated costs per partner with the form C and the provided justification with the information from the WP and Partner Monitoring.

4.1.4.2 Evaluation of deliverables Following approval of deliverables (D and PD) by the work package leader and submission to the Office of SEAMLESS, an internal review procedure is adopted by the Board. A template has been developed to structure and harmonise the evaluation of deliverables (Deliverable Evaluation Report). The evaluation report examines the main achievements of the deliverable against its key objectives and its ‘accessibility’ for other disciplines in the project. Comments are also made for consideration by the authors. In addition, the evaluation report offers (a)


Page 115 of 196

advice regarding linkages with other work packages (identifying the activities in the project that would benefit from the achievements), (b) proposing further steps following completion of the report, and (c) recommend whether the report is released through the SEAMLESS website.

The evaluation reports are put on the portal (deliverable library) for access by all researchers in the project, and the authors are requested to finalize their deliverable taking into account of these comments. Annex H provides an example of an evaluation report.

The review procedure is largely undertaken and managed by WP0 and WP1, with the involvement of other experts from the project if appropriate. It has been an important instrument to assess achievements, and address issues of importance for cross-work package activities. Project participants generally found this way of evaluating deliverables stimulating and constructive, and facilitating integration.

4.1.4.3 Scientific Advisory Board In the first year, the Scientific Advisory Board was composed. It consists out of esteemed, international scientists from non-SEAMLESS partners, including from outside Europe, covering the following disciplines: agricultural economics, information technology, systems analysis, agronomy and rural sociology (Annex B-1). The core of the SAB will serve on the SAB for the full duration of the project. The SAB had its first meeting on November 22-24 in The Hague, The Netherlands (Annex B-2). The Board attended a WP1 meeting (day 1), and had various interviews with mainly WP-leaders and Board members on day 2. Day 3 the Board wrote its report and presented this to the Board. Section 2.2 summarizes the SAB findings and a response from the SEAMLESS Board. Annex B-3 contains the full report of the SAB. The SEAMLESS Board was extremely pleased with the thorough and comprehensive assessment of the SAB, completed in three days and the assessment has proven to be very useful for the drafting of the new implementation plan.

4.1.5 Knowledge management

4.1.5.1 Dissemination of knowledge In order for SEAMLESS to develop a useful, up to date policy tool for integrated assessment of agricultural and environmental policies the communication with users, stakeholders and the general public is of major importance. The engagements with the public include activities aiming at spreading awareness and knowledge and at exploring the wider social implications of the proposed work.

Prime users of SEAMLESS Integrated Framework are the Directorates General of the European Commission, the JRC and the European Environment Agency (EEA) and we also aim at making the tool useful for national/regional policy making agencies, farmer’s organizations and NGOs. A third important future user group we aim at is the scientific community. In order to learn about the needs of these potential user groups, a key objective in the SEAMLESS project is to involve users in the development of the tools from the very beginning of the project.

The activities related to the dissemination of knowledge during the first year of the project can principally be categorized under the headlines of user meetings, newsletters, press items, course activities as well as presentations at scientific conferences and meetings. These different subjects are further explored in Annex A.


Page 116 of 196

As 2005 has been the first year of the SEAMLESS project the dissemination activities have had their main focus on establishing contacts with potential users as well as informing about the project. During the coming 18 month period we foresee that the emphasis of activities will gradually move towards demonstrations of demos and prototypes, as well as participatory methods, testing of prototypes, as well as User Forums and additional user meetings aiming at more deeply exploring specific issues related to ongoing work.

The following three topics of use and dissemination of knowledge arising from the project are of main importance and are covered in Annex A: a) exploitable knowledge and its use; b) Dissemination of knowledge; c) Publishable results.

4.1.5.2 Website and portal Management of the project invested largely in setting up an effective web portal for internal communication and a website for external information exchange. The project makes extensive use of web-based technologies to communicate among researchers.

A central place in the project’s communication is a web portal. The portal is an interactive platform where researchers can exchange files and documents and find the latest contact lists and project events. The portal is strongly linked to Windows XP and Microsoft Office. This strong connection enables most users to use the portal like a natural extension of their own computer. Apart from the portal, researchers make use of several CVS and data servers for the exchange of source code and data. The web-based tools are used by many project participants and have shown to be indispensable tools facilitating communication within the project.

The portal currently has the following features: contact lists, calendar, announcements, project events and other events (e.g. conferences, workshops of interest to SEAMLESS participants), information about related projects, libraries for project deliverables, models and data, libraries for presentations and references, lists of SEAMLESS press, external contacts. The portal is used by many of the project participants and has shown to be an indispensable tool facilitating communication within the project. For example, to foster information exchange between scientists with strongly different scientific backgrounds as co-operating within SEAMLESS, a glossary of scientific terms has been developed and is available on the portal. We aim to use the portal even more effectively and we try to replace Email communication partly by portal communication.

The external website, currently supplies the following information:

• General information on SEAMLESS inclusive a downloadable flyer;

• Specific information on project objectives, project background, SEAMLESS-IF system structure, project organisation and consortium;

• News; from here, newsletter can be downloaded;

• Publications;

• Reports from SEAMLESS that can be downloaded;

• Links to related projects.

New developments and foreseen updates for the external website, are:

• More information on the specific work within different work packages within SEAMLESS;


Page 117 of 196

• Increasing the amount of available output from SEAMLESS, such as reports, software, data bases and system output.

The website can be accessed through http://www.seamless-ip.org/ and the internal portal through https://portal.wur.nl/sites/seamless/default.aspx

4.1.5.3 Kick-off meeting and 1st Annual symposium The project had a very stimulating Kick-off meeting in Lund, Sweden, from January 25-28, 2005. The programme has been attached as Annex G. In total 85 participated in plenary and parallel sessions. At the end of this meeting the General Assembly had its first meeting.

The 1st Annual symposium of the project will be held from February 20-22, 2006 in Brixen, Italy. Ca. 110 project members have subscribed. The programme on day 1 provides insight in the Demo Version and Prototype 1 and an overview of progress per WP. Day 2 starts with a plenary session with invited speakers who will present: 1. related projects, 2. experiences on projects with an important software component, 3. national research programmes related to SEAMLESS; 4. integrated assessment in the European Commission; 5. EU Framework Programme 7. Further this day will have working sessions for WP-related subjects and a session with Science for SEAMLESS. The last day will have plenary and working sessions, cross-WP, focusing on Prototype 1 and Prototype 2 of SEAMLESS-IF. Special sessions have been scheduled for PhD and young researchers in the project and Gender issues. The General Assembly will have its 2nd meeting.

4.1.5.4 User Forum Establishment of a User Forum and contacts with Users in general is a joint WP0-WP7 activity and has been reported already in Section 2.3.7; it is coordinated by the User Liaison Officer, appointed at Lund University (LU).

4.1.5.5 Relationships to other projects The SEAMLESS portal contains a full list of references (website, documents) of related projects. For each related project a contact person has been identified. The project benefits from and uses results of various former EU projects (e.g. ELPEN, IRENA, CAPRI projects, ATEAM, KASSA, Multagri, etc.).

The Co-ordinator of SEAMLESS participated in a meeting (‘Exploring synergies between projects’) organised by DG Research, Directorate I – Environment – Policy aspects of research and sustainable development, for all running FP5 and FP6 projects related to agriculture, land use and sustainable development on June 21, 2005, in Brussels. The SEAMLESS portal contains a list of related projects (MEASCOPE, SENSOR, INSEA, Multagri, KASSA, HarmoniQuA, QUEST, TIGRESS, CAPRI-Dynaspat, IRENA, SustainabilityA-test, IQ TOOLS, GEO, RENEW, CHRISGAS, MARS, MATISSE, RoA, DESURVEY, NATURNET-REDIME, THRESHOLDS), with links and information and a contact person from SEAMLESS.

SEAMLESS has strong collaborations with several ongoing projects, in particular:

• SENSOR: 5 topics for collaboration and their contact persons were identified: o data issues;


Page 118 of 196

o indicator management; o scenario definition; o user interaction; o landscape modelling.

SEAMLESS contact persons initiated drafting of 5 notes specifying these topics with a SENSOR colleague. Via bottom-up collaboration we try to harmonize approaches on these subjects whenever efficient and deemed necessary.

• Harmon-IT: Several FP5 and FP6 from the Harmon consortium, in particular Harmon-IT: WP5 of SEAMLESS has adopted OpenMI as a standard for model integration in SeamFrame (section 2.3.5). See also the article in the SEAMLESS Newsletter (Annex C).

• Dynaspat: SEAMLESS collaborates with this project on the development and application of statistical procedures to spatially allocate farm types derived from FADN data.

4.1.6 Summary assessment of current achievements and status

Generally the commitment of researchers and partners in the project is good and stimulating. Atmosphere in meetings is generally very positive, constructive, and integration-oriented. Researchers are increasingly aware of the high (seamless) level of integration needed in this project and the implication this has for their own work. This has, however, been the result of a major investment both prior to and during the project’s first year.

As also noted by the Scientific Advisory Board in its report, the size of the consortium (and similar consortia) is beyond an efficient size, both in terms of numbers of partners involved and in number of persons per partners. The number of partners brings about significant administrative coordination and overhead, and timely response to requests concerning reporting and finances is definitely an issue of concern (‘the last determining the speed of processes’). The number of persons involved increases the potential pitfalls in communication and fragmentation. The investment to achieve a common understanding of objectives, ambitions and level of integration needed is very high. Many persons have a relatively small input in the project (probably meaning they are involved in many projects). The management of the project anticipates a concentration of the workpower around a number of key persons that can work (almost) full time on the project. These persons will become increasingly important by giving them a key role in (leading) task forces, mostly across work packages (on e.g., databases, farm modelling and its application, filling the knowledge base, developing Prototype 1).

Overall, for the project as a whole we estimate a delay of ca. 3 months compared with the original schedule. This is evident also from the number of deliverables which have been delayed (Section 3.2) and Table 4.1. WP2 and WP7 are close to on schedule in terms of deliverables, WP1 is 2-3 months behind schedule, WP3 is up to 4 months behind schedule for some tasks, and WP4 has a delay of ca. 3 months. WP5 has changed its work approach radically in spring 2005. As a result the progress cannot be measured only in terms of number of deliverables completed, as tasks which were originally supposed to start in 2006 have already started (Section 2.3.5). WP6 is ca. 2 month behind schedule. At the moment it still seems feasible to complete Prototype 1 in time (month 18). Some activities which are not or less essential to Prototype 1 have been postponed beyond month 18 (e.g. components of Task 3.2, Task 3.7 and 3.8 and declarative modelling as part of SeamFrame in WP5). Ambitions as to the use of ontologies (WP5 and other WPs) have been scaled down for Prototype 1. Major reasons for the delay are: delay of the Contract and advance payment, late recruitment of personnel, (re)defining the work, finding the right leadership strategy in the project and WPs and cascading effects in the project due to its highly integrative nature.


Page 119 of 196

Financial resources for year 1 have been depleted by 77 %, which closely matches the delays in some parts of the project. There is a close relationship between delays of WPs and underspending of budgets. WP1: 78%; WP2: 95%; WP3: 82%; WP4: 68%; WP5: 65%; WP6: 78%; WP7: 119%. For details of finances, see the Financial reporting.

Most partners have delivered according to the DoW (albeit with some delays); some have underperformed. Corrective measures have been taken in the New implementation plan for some partners and in other cases partners have promised to compensate. The consortium has agreed that the Co-ordinator withholds 17.5 % of advance payments; the 17.5% will be released upon approval by the Co-ordinator of all technical and financial reports and costs statements and the Project’s forward plan relating to a specific partner that year.

The project management had a strong focus on internal management and affairs to build up the consortium and working relationships, enhance effective WP-leadership and stimulate the level of integration throughout the project. Quality Assurance has focused strongly on evaluation of deliverables. The project has invested significantly in establishing good relationship with potential Prime Users.

The management anticipates a gradually growing external-orientation in year 2 and onwards. Scientific and other publications and project presentations will become increasingly important. Contacts with Prime and Other users will be intensified. Quality Assurance will focus on quality of software, model components and data management, such that the outputs from the project can be widely disseminated.

4.2 Project timetable and status

This section provides for each work package and its tasks a time table (see Table 4.2) including a status bar chart; for major changes and deviations of the work, the reader is kindly referred to Section 2.3 of this report.

4.2.1 WP1 – WP7

Problems encountered in WP1 and any corrective measures taken are described in Section 2.3.1 of the report.








Page 120 of 196

Table 4.2 Work planned and actual progress (see line near January 1, 2006 for actual progress) Year 2005 2006 2007 2008

Month

Planning per task

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

WP 0

Task 0.1

Task 0.2 Task 0.3

WP 1

Task 1.1

Task 1.2 Task 1.3 Task 1.4 Task 1.5

WP 2

Task 2.1

Task2.2 Task 2.3 Task 2.4 Task 2.5


Page 121 of 196

Task 2.6 WP 3

Task 3.1

Task 3.2 Task 3.3 Task 3.5 Task 3.6 Task 3.7 Task 3.8 Task 3.9 WP 4

Task 4.1

Task 4.2 Task 4.3 Task 4.4 Task 4.5 Task 4.6 Task 4.7 Task 4.8 WP5

Task 5.1


Page 122 of 196

Task 5.2 Task 5.3 Task 5.4 Task 5.5 Task 5.6

WP6

Task 6.1

Task 6.2 Task 6.3 Task 6.4 Task 6.5 WP7

Task 7.1

Task 7.2 Task 7.3 Task 7.4 Task 7.5 Task 7.6


Page 123 of 196

4.3 Project meetings and co-operation

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 provide information on project meetings of respectively WP0 and WP1 and topics discussed; meetings of the other WPs are listed in Section 3 (Task 2.1, 3.1, etc.).

The number of project meetings has been high in 2005. This turned out to be inevitable because of the size of the project and its highly integrated ambitions. Meetings in person were deemed necessary to bridge the wide range of disciplines, to reach a similar level of understanding of aims and ambitions and to ensure consistent collaboration. In the course of 2005 more phone and video meetings were organised. It is anticipated that this will become much more common in 2006 and onwards.

Table 4.3 Information on meetings of the Board of SEAMLESS-IP

WP/Con-sortium

Date/Place Status Topic Participants

WP0 January 12, 2005. Wageningen (The Netherlands)

Board Meeting

Installment co-opted board member Contract issues Plan for use and dissemination of knowledge Press release and joint publications Monitoring and planning system Agenda Lund meeting Other issues/ Reports and queries/ next meeting

12 persons (including record taking and advisor)

WP0

January 28, 2005. Lund (Sweden)

Board Meeting

Contract issues. Contacts with related projects. Plan for use and dissemination of knowledge. Monitoring and planning system. Other issues / Reports and Queries. Meeting schedule 2005.

12 persons (including advisor and record taking)

WP0 April 15, 2005, Bologna (Italy)

Board Meeting

Announcements. Monitoring and planning system. Scientific Advisory Board, Gender Action Plan, Knowledge and Dissemination Plan. Intranet. Communication. Contacts with related projects. Participation in new events/

12 persons


Page 124 of 196

conferences. Meeting DG Agriculture. Procedure acceptance deliverables.

WP0 June 30, 2005, Montpellier (France)

Board Meeting

Changes in management of work packages. Changes in partner participation. Knowledge and dissemination plan. Monitoring. Annual implementation plan. First assessment of achievements, working modes, coordination. Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). User Forum. Newsletter. Gender Action Plan. Contacts with related projects. Intranet/internet. Server for data and models. Forthcoming meetings. Annual meeting.

10 persons

WP0 October 5, Bonn (Germany)

Board Meeting

Changes in WP leadership. Current changes in partner participations. Monitoring and progress. Assessing management in the project – interrelationships and decisiveness. Annual Implementation Plan (IP). Planning of first prototype of SEAMLESS-IF. Software quality and maintenance. SAB. User Forum and Newsletter. Experiences remote networking and videoconferencing. Contacts with related projects. Intranet/Internet. Contract SEAMLESS-EC on use FADN data.

11 persons

WP0 November 24, 2005 (The Hague, the Netherlands)

Board meeting

Gender Action Plan. Monitoring system. Annual reporting Annual Implementation Plan. SAB.

11 persons


Page 125 of 196

User forum and newsletter Training. Software quality control. SEAMLESS beyond 2008. Contacts with related projects and new initiatives. Forthcoming meetings. Project management.

WP1 meetings have a main role in the scientific development within SEAMLESS-IP, with their focus on: first the development of the conceptual basis of the different components of SEAMLESS-IF, next, the development of the different components and the prototypes of SEAMLESS-IF, and finally, the completion of SEAMLESS-IF. Information on the main topics discussed during the WP1 meetings in 2005 are given in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Information on meetings of WP1 of SEAMLESS-IP

WP Date/Place Status Topic Participants

WP1 (e.g. WP1 meeting)

WP1 members

WP1 January 11, 2005, Wageningen (The Netherlands)

Start-up meeting

Clarification about the tasks, activities and partner responsibilities in WP1 for the first 18-month period. Agreement on conceptualization and definition of the agricultural system(s). Specification of next activities and form of collaboration within WP1. Preparation of WP1 meeting in Lund.

19 persons

WP1 January 27, Lund (Sweden)

WP1 meeting

Start-up activities in Task 1.3. Activities related to Task 1.2.

28 persons

WP1 March 22 – 23, The Hague (The Netherlands)

WP1 meeting

Presentation of example test case 1 Discussion of the progress with Report 1.2.1 Presentation on Task 2.4

16 persons

14-15 April 2005, Bologna, Italy

WP1 meeting

Demonstration and discussion of the workability of the conceptual model. Reports from different WPs on work progress (T1.3). Presentation and discussion of dummy software for presentation of SEAMLESS-IF. Discussion and identification of exact requirements for prototype I

17 persons

June 29, 2005, Montpellier,

WP1 meeting

Report on progress on activities in task T1.3.

29 persons


Page 126 of 196

France

Discussion on cross-WP issues. Updating cross WP workflows and prototype requirements. WP1 committee.

October 3-4, 2005, Bonn, Germany

WP1 meeting

Presentations by WP leaders on PDs 1.3.1-1.3.7. Demo-version, AND, 18MPROTO, Test Case 1.

20 persons

November 21-22, The Hague (the Netherlands)

WP1 meeting

Farm typology and territorial typology. Farm allocation and territorial typologies. Data base issue. Model linkages. Report on methods in SEAMLESS-IF. Demonstration of the current demo-version. Presentation on SeamFrame for Prototype 1. SeamFrame: workflows for model linking. SEAMCAP integration plan. Specification of prototype I. Linking indicators-models-data bases for Test Case 1. Institutional and social indicators, assessment and integration.

18 persons


Page 127 of 196

References

Auclair D., Barczi J.-F., Borne F., Etienne M., 2001. Assessing the visual impact of agroforestry management with landscape design software. Landscape Research, 26(4): 397-406)

DG Agriculture (2003) Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: A Long Term Perspective for Sustainable Agriculture: Impact Analysis. European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.

Dolk, D.R. and J.E. Kottemann (1993) Model integration and a theory of models, Decision Support Systems 9: 51-63.

EuroCARE (2002) Towards an analytical capacity in costing of abatement options for forestry and agricultural carbon sinks. EuroCARE Bonn, for DG Environment, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.

Eupen, M. van, Knol W.C., Verwuij P., Nijhof B. 2002. Landscape ecological decision and evaluation support system. LEDESS. Users guide. Alterra report 447. Alterra, Green World Research, Wageningen. NL

Gaucherel, C., Giboire, N., Viaud, V., Houet, T., Baudry, J. and Burel, F. 2006. A domain specific language for patchy landscape modelling: the Brittany agricultural mosaic as a case study. Ecological Modelling, in press

Gijsbers, P. J. A., R. V. Moore, and C. I. Tindall. (2002) HarmonIT: Towards OMI, an Open Modelling Interface and Environment to harmonise European developments in water related simulation software. In: Hydroinformatics 2002. Fifth International Conference on Hydroinformatics. IAHR, Cardiff, UK.

Gijsbers, P. J. A., E. Brakkee, J. B. Gregersen, L. E. P. Hanssen, S. Hummel, R. Brinkman, S. Vanacek, and S. Westen (2003) HarmonIT: OpenMI Architecture - Report B. System Specification.

Hillyer, C., Bolte, J., van Evert, F. and Lamaker, A (2003) The MODCOM modular simulation system, European Journal of Agronomy, 18: 333-343.

Leavesley, G.H., Markstrom, S.L., Brewer, M.S., Viger, R.J. (1996) The modular modelling system (MMS) -- The physical process modelling component of a database-centered decision support system for water and power management; Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 90, 303-311.

Parker, P., R. Letcher et al. (2002) Progress in Integrated Assessment and Modelling. Environmental Modelling and Software, 17: 209-217.

Rahman, J.M., S.P. Seaton and S.M. Cuddy (2003) Making frameworks more useable: using model introspection and metadata to develop model processing tools. Environmental Modelling and Software, 29: 275-284.

Rahman, J. M., S. P. Seaton, and S. M. Cuddy (2005?) Making frameworks more useable: using model introspection and metadata to develop model processing tools. Environmental Modelling & Software, to appear.

Rizzoli, A.E., Davis, J.R. and Abel, D.J., (1998) Model and data integration and re-use in environmental decision support systems. Decision Support Systems 24, 127-144.


Page 128 of 196

Szyperski, C., Gruntz, D. and Murer, S. (2002) Component Software - Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. Second Edition. Addison-Wesley / ACM Press, 608 pages.

Zander P., Kächele H. 1999. Modelling multiple objectives of land use for sustainable development. Agricultural Systems 59: 311-325


Page 129 of 196

Annex A Plan for using and disseminating the Knowledge (PD0.3.1/0.3.5)

A-1 Introduction

In order for SEAMLESS to develop a useful, up to date policy tool for integrated assessment of agricultural and environmental policies the communication with users, stakeholders and the general public is of major importance. The engagements with the public include activities aiming at spreading awareness and knowledge and at exploring the wider social implications of the proposed work.

Prime users of SEAMLESS Integrated Framework are the Directorates General of the European Commission, the JRC and the European Environment Agency (EEA) and we also aim at making the tool useful for national/regional policy making agencies, farmer’s organizations and NGOs. A third important future user group we aim at is the scientific community. In order to learn about the needs of these potential user groups, a key objective in the SEAMLESS project is to involve users in the development of the tools from the very beginning of the project.

The activities related to the dissemination of knowledge during the first year of the project can principally be categorized under the headlines of user meetings, press items, course activities as well as presentations at scientific conferences and meetings. These different subjects are further explored under separate headlines below.

As 2005 has been the first year of the SEAMLESS project the dissemination activities have had their main focus on establishing contacts with potential users as well as informing about the project. During the coming 18 month period we foresee that the emphasis of activities will gradually move towards demonstrations of demos and prototypes, as well as participatory methods, testing of prototypes, as well as User Forums and additional user meetings aiming at more deeply exploring specific issues related to ongoing work.

The following three topics of use and dissemination of knowledge arising from the project are covered in the following: a) exploitable knowledge and its use; b) Dissemination of knowledge; c) Publishable results

A-2 Exploitable knowledge and its use

Exploitable knowledge is defined as knowledge having a potential for industrial or commercial application in research activities or for developing, creating or marketing a product or process or for creating a service. Such knowledge is not expected to be produced by the SEAMLESS project.


Page 130 of 196

A-3 Dissemination of Knowledge

Dissemination of knowledge from the SEAMLESS project is done in many ways such as a) user forum, b) external contacts, c) press items, d) courses, e) contribution to meetings, f) newsletter, and g) the SEAMLESS website. These dissemination activities are described in the following.

A-3.1 User Forum

After several introductory meetings with potential users in different organizations during spring 2005, we organised user meetings in Brussels during October 2005 targeting both Directorates General and other organizations. A short chronological overview of activities related to the formation of the User Forum follows in the following. Since April 2005 information meetings have been held at DG Agriculture and at DG Environment after discussions with SEAMLESS Work Package leaders about the selection of suitable prime and other potential users to be involved in SEAMLESS. At these meetings the Animated Narrative Demo (AND) was shown and further user involvement was discussed. EEA has been visited and several people were spoken with. Concerning the OECD, meetings were held with Wilfrid Legg (Head of the Policies and Environment Division in the OECD Agriculture Directorate) and Kevin Paris (Senior Economist) at the OECD.

In October 2005 user meetings with prime users (morning) and other users (after noon) were held in Brussels. Prime users represented three DGs (Agri, Environment and EcFin). During this meeting Martin van Ittersum introduced SEAMLESS and presented the Animated Narrative Demo. The interest from users was high - during and after the presentations questions and comments were raised concerning a wide range of issues. Also, decisions were made on the establishment of a Users Forum, and it was agreed the three DGs will nominate persons for such Forum.

A prime user forum core group has been identified and contacted. Participants represent DG Environment, DG EcFin, DG Agri, DG Regio, a parliament representative, and also JRC and EEA. After the initial User Forum in October 2005 they are henceforth planned to be held twice a year – approximately with an interval of 6 month. The theme of the forums will shift related to the needs of the project. The composition of the SEAMLESS participants will also be adapted according to the theme of the meeting. The 2nd Users Forum is planned for April 2006 (month 16) and will focus on the Demo and/or the model train. The forum will be directed towards prime users while other users will be contacted again during fall 2006.

Other stakeholder contacts taken with prime users during this first year concerns to indicator selections and input on present and future important policy issues for SEAMLESS to consider.

The 2nd annual symposium of the SEAMLESS project (February 2007) will include the first special sessions organised for and with stakeholders. Stakeholders are defined in this context as individuals and groups affecting and/or being affected by agricultural policy decisions and agricultural land use.

A-3.2 External contacts

Contacts with users and stakeholders have been made on the road to the formation of the User Forum. New external contacts have also been the result of trying to get input on certain aspects relevant to the SEAMLESS project. These were, for example, indicator selection and information


Page 131 of 196

about present and future policy issues of concern to the EU that SEAMLESS should be able to deal with. These contacts have often been initialised over phone or e-mail and thereafter, meetings have been arranged or questionnaires have been sent out. In the Table A-1 an overview of these contacts is given. The contacts established during the first year of the project will be an important basis for the future involvement of users’ groups in the project.

TABLE A-1 List of external contacts of SEAMLESS project


Page 132 of 196

Last Name First Name Organization Contact person Purpose of the contact Durand Nicolas INRA Daniel Auclair Contacted about cooperation with the French programme "Agriculture et

Développement Durable". Aspinwall David Dg Env Liisa Martinsson June 15, 2005. Participant at Information meeting at DG Env . Barbosa Pedro DG Env Liisa Martinson June 15, 2005. Participant at information meeting at DG Env . Barkman Andreas EEA Liisa Martinson April 15, 2005. Interview about the role of EEA together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund. Baron Dominique Department of farms, General

Directorate of Forest and Rural Affairs (MAP)

Genevieve Bigot July 6, 2005. Meeting with the french Ministry of Agriculture and fishing (MAP) .

Baschet J.F. Service of evaluation and programs, Department of studies and forecast (MAP)

Genevieve Bigot July 6, 2005. Meeting with the french Ministry of Agriculture and fishing (MAP).

Beaumond Hans-Christian DG Agri Liisa Martinson April 28, 2005. Participant at information Meeting at DG Agri. Bokias Efthimios DG Agri Liisa Martinson March 16, 2005. Initialization and discussions about Users Forum together with Ann-

Katrin Bäcklund. Bossy Anne Department of farms, General

Directorate of Forest and Rural Affairs (MAP-DGFAR)


Brown Mary DG Agri Liisa Martinson March 16, 2005. Arranging User Meetings together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund. Canenbley C DG Agri Liisa Martinson March 17, 2005. Discussion/interview about EU agricultural policy issues together

with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund. Dechambre Bernard Service of Evaluation and Programs,

Department of Studies and forecast (MAP)

Genevieve Bigot July 6, 2005. Meeting with the french Ministry of Agriculture and fishing (MAP) .

Eggenhofer Christian CEPS Liisa Martinson March 18, 2005. Interview about climate change policy issues on the EU agenda together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund.

Mathijs Erik University Leuven Liisa Martinson Present other UF October 27, 2005. Werry Fons EURAGRI Ittersum, Martin

van Martin van Ittersum was invited to give a presentation of SEAMLESS in the XIX Euragri Members Conference 22-24 September 2005 York, UK.

Fenech Catherine DG Env Liisa Martinson Arranging information meeting at Dg Env. Glaeser Hermann DG Agri Liisa Martinson April 28, 2005. Participant at information meeting Dg Agri Högberg Hanna COGECA Liisa Martinson March 15, 2005. Interview about policy issues on the agricultural and environmental


Page 133 of 196

agenda together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund. Humbert Lucien AFD Ittersum, Martin

van AFD is financing rural development project in Mali and is a stakeholder for Seamless project. The Seamless project has been presented.

Innamorati Angelo DG Agri Liisa Martinson Participated in first UF October 27, 2005. Jerneck Staffan CEPS Liisa Martinson March 18, 2005. Interview about the work of CEPS in relation to issues on agriculture

and environment. Kébé Demba Ministry of Agriculture, Mali Bruno Rapidel Former coordinator of the Seamless project for IER, moved to the Agriculture Ministry,

important stakeholder. Larsson Allan former Director General DG V,

Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities

Liisa Martinson February 22, 2005. Workshop about the EC and personal interview together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund.

Legg Wilfrid OECD Liisa Martinson June 1, 2005. Discussion about user involvement of the OECD together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund.

Lindén Carl-Johan Swedish permanent representation in Brussels

Liisa Martinson March 15, 2005.Interview about agricultural policy issues in the EU together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund.

Meester Gerrit Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

Brouwer, Floor SEAMLESS will organise a follow-up meeting in the Ministry of Agriculture, probably in Spring 2005. Floor Brouwer will follow-up on this meeting.

Nunez Ferrer Jorge CEPS Liisa Martinson March 18, 2005. Interview about agricultural policy issues in the EU. Together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund WP7.

Olazabal Claudia Dg Env Liisa Martinson June 16, 2006. Particpant at information meeting at Dg Env. Olsson Karl-Erik European Parliament, former member Ann-Katrin

Bäcklund April 11, 2005. Interview about the European Parliament - policy and organizational issues.

O'Riordan Tim University of East Anglia Lennart Olsson Suggestions conserning higher level contacts in Brussels. Ottosson-Björnholm

Ulf Swedish permanent representation in Brussels

Liisa Martinson Interview about environmental policy questions on the EU agenda.

Paris Kevin OECD Liisa Martinson June 1, 2005. Discussion about user involvement of the OECD. Petersen Jan-Erik EEA Liisa Martinson Interview about the role of EEA in agricultural issues. Ratinger Tomas JRC Seville, IPTS Liisa Martinson Participated in first UF October 27. Reitmeier Sabine Forum Brixen-Bressanone Ein

Personen G.m.b.H./srl a socio unico Niklas Parbäck Conference venue for 1st annual conference in February 2006.

Rogier Philippe Department of supports to territories and rural players, General Directorate



Page 134 of 196

of Forest and Rural Affairs, MAP Sandrup Alarik Federation of Swedish Farmers

Brussels office Liisa Martinson March 16, 2005. Interview about agricultal policy issues on the COPA agenda

together with Ann-Katrin Bäcklund. Scheele Martin DG Agri Liisa Martinson March 15, 2005. Interview about the work of DG Agri and Users Forum together with

Ann-Katrin Bäcklund. Spangenberg Joachim Sustainable Europe Research Institute

(SERI) Wuppertal Institut Insa Theesfeld Exchange scientific experience on the elaboration of institutional indicators.

Sponar Michel DG Env Liisa Martinson June 16, 2005.Participant at information meeting at DG Env. Also participated in first UF October 27, 2005.

Sutton Mark Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)

Jo Smith Ensure coordination between methods used in the NEU (NitroEurope) proposal and SEAMLESS.

Vibert Marie-Agnès Department of Europ and regions, General Directorate of Forest and Rural Affairs

Genevieve Bigot July 6, 2005. Meeting with the French Ministry of Agriculture and Fishing.

Vindel Bruno Department of studies and forecast, Directorate of Economical and International Policies (MAP)


Vounakis Irja DG Env Liisa Martinson Research contact person at DG Env. Helped with arranging user meeting. Willems Eric DG Agri Liisa Martinson April 28, 2005. Participant at information Meeting at DG Agri. Also participated in first

UF October 27, 2005 and has sent document on landscape indicators Nov-05.


Page 136 of 196

A-3.3 Press items

Information about the SEAMLESS project has been published by various news media. These were, for example, articles in local, national and EU papers/magazines and articles on university web pages. In relation to the SEAMLESS kick-off conference in Lund, South Swedish Television broadcasted an interview with SEAMLESS representatives. In Table A-2 an overview of press items about the SEAMLESS project is given.

TABLE A-2 List of press items about the SEAMLESS project

URL

Other Press (no URL available) Description

http://dbs.cordis.lu/fep-cgi/srchidadb?CALLER=FP6_ NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=EN_RCN_ID:23247

Article in CORDIS RTD-News (26-01-2005)

http://www.wau.nl/pers/05/009wur.html Press release in Dutch from Wageningen University (25-01-2005)

http://www.agriholland.nl/nieuws/artikel.html?id=51230 Article in AgriHolland (26-01-2005)

http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s/1383?visa=pm&pm_id=232 Article on website Lund University (24-01-2005)

http://www.wau.nl/pers/05/009wure.html Same press release of Wageningen University as mentioned above in English (25-01-2005)

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/agricultural_ sciences/reports-39371.html

Article on forum for science, industry and business (26-01-2005)

file://http://www.prospective.org/gps_front/index.php? rubrique_id=4&tpl_id=2&f=menu

A French website of the Prospective group working for the senate is reporting about SEAMLESS

http://www.uni-bonn.de/Aktuelles/ Presseinformationen/2005/107.html German (Uni Bonn) press release (March 2005) on SEAMLESS

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/ environment/newsanddoc/article_2384_en.htm

Article in EC journal

Sydnytt-South Swedish television

A 4 minute report about the Kick-off meeting held at Lund University. Interviews with Lennart Olsson and Mats Svensson. January 26th.

Sydsvenska Dagbladet - South Swedish newspaper

An interview with Lennart Olsson during the SEAMLESS Kick-Off meeting, January 26th. The newspaper daily reaches 150 000 subscribers.

http://www.senternovem.nl/eglmilieu/indepraktijk/milieu_seamless.asp An article in a Magazine of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs

http://www.uvm.edu/theview/ article.php?id=1511 Press article on


Page 137 of 196

Seamless and UVM participation in Burlington's The View

A-3.4 Courses on SEAMLESS related topics

The SEAMLESS project is an integrated project that deals with a number of challenges. These are related to the interdisciplinary nature of the project, the linking of models ranging over scales from field to global, and the participatory methods. The advanced approaches applied within the project in these and other fields are of high interest to students involved in various courses of the participating partner universities. In all about 80 students have been participating in these courses. In Table A-3 an overview is given of the integration of SEAMLESS approaches and results in education activities of partner universities.

TABLE A-3 List of SEAMLESS related courses and training

Title course/ training Description SEAMLESS contact person URL

Envirionmental Economics

Using SEAMLESS systems approach to illustrate multiple environmental impacts

Eirik Romstad, NLH http://kurs.umb.no/ecn371/index.html

Ecological and environmental modelling

Describes the framework approach to systems modelling as a small component of the general modelling course

Jo Smith, UNIABDN

Countryside Management

Based an assessed exercise around the selection of indicators to assess the contribution of agri-environment schemes to objectives of sustainability and multifunctionality

Guy Garrod, UNEW

Knowledge modeling for Enviromental Research and Management

The goal of this course is to provide students with technologies to manage, discover and re-think ecological, biodiversity and environmental information. The course deals with the management of information along the entire data stream, from data representation through data acquisition and knowledge discovery to maintenance of persistent repositories.

Fernando Villa, UVM http://ecoinformatics.uvm.edu/the-collaboratory/teaching/nr385-graduate-course.html

Multifunctional agricultural landscape research

Presentation of SEAMLESS in the context of a module on different projects related to multifunctionality of agriculture

Peter Zander, ZALF http://www.agrar.hu-berlin.de/wisola/fg/lr/

A-3.5 Contributions to meetings

Contributions to meetings by SEAMLESS participants have mainly been made during two conferences, first, 97th Annual Meeting, American Society of Agronomy, November 2005 and second, Advances and Applications for Management and Decision Making MODSIM05, December 2005 (Table A-4). These presentations represented the work by SEAMLESS participants particularly in WP5 but also in other WP’s. As the SEAMLESS integrated


Page 138 of 196

framework is further developed during 2006, we foresee that the presentations of work at scientific conferences will reflect this development.

TABLE A-4 List of SEAMLESS contributions to conferences and scientific meetings

Authors Name and date of the conference Place of conference Organizer

M.K. van Ittersum EURAGRI conference, September 22-23, 2005

York, UK EURAGRI

J. Alkan Olsson Expert workshop, Imple-menting the CAP reform in the new Member States impact on the sustain-nability of Farming Systems, October 6-7, 2005

Sevilla, Spain DG JRC/Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, DG AGRI and DG RTD

Martin van Ittersum, Johanna Alkan Olsson, Erling Andersen, Floor Brouwer, Marcello Donatelli, Frank Ewert, Guillermo Flichman, Lennart Olsson, Andrea Rizzoli, Tamme van der Wal, Jacques Wery

97th Annual Meeting, American Society of Agronomy, November 9, 2005

Salt Lake City, UTAH, US ASA-CSSA-SSSA

M. Donatelli, L. Carlini, G. Bellocchi



M. Donatelli, M. Acutis, G. Bellocchi



M. Donatelli, G. Bellocchi, L. Carlini, M. Colauzzi

MODSIM05,12-15,December 13, 2005

Melbourne, Australia The Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zeland

Rizzoli, A.E, M. Donatelli, I. Athanasiadis, F. Villa, R. Muetzelfeldt, D. Huber



van der Wal, T., R. Knapen, M. Svensson, I. Athanasiadis & A. Rizzoli



van Evert, F., D. Holzworth, R. Muetzelfeldt, A. Rizzoli & F. Villa



Villa, F. MODSIM05,12-15,December 13, 2009


A-3.6 Newsletter

The first SEAMLESS external newsletter was completed in the end of October 2005. As the newsletter is aimed for a broad SEAMLESS external audience, the topics were chosen to give a general introduction to the project followed by more specific articles. The newsletter has been sent to international stakeholders as well as national interest organizations. The number of people receiving the newsletter outside the projects amount to around 400. The Newsletter has generally been received well and several contacts with additional stakeholders have been


Page 139 of 196

initialised from Newsletter recipients. The Newsletter is available on the website (see section A-3.7).

The first SEAMLESS newsletter covered the following topics: a) SEAMLESS-IF in a nutshell, b) User interaction, c) Models in SEAMLESS, d) Pan-European data for SEAMLESS-IF, e) SeamFrame builds on OpenMI, f) Test cases in SEAMLESS, g) Development of the Animated Narrative Demo

A-3.7 Website

Limited emphasis has been given to the external use of the website until now. Even though, the number of visitors and visits of the website was respectively 4050 and 8150 during year 2005. Oppositely, the portal which can only be accessed by participants within the consortium, has been used intensively for information exchange within the consortium. A wider use of the external website is foreseen in the future.

The topics that are covered by the external SEAMLESS website, are presently:

- General information on SEAMLESS inclusive a downloadable flyer

- Specific information on project objectives, project background, SEAMLESS-IF system structure, project organisation and consortium

- News; from here, newsletter can be downloaded

- Publications

- Reports from SEAMLESS that can be downloaded (see Table A-6).

- Links to related projects

New developments and changes foreseen for the external website, are:

- More information on the specific work within different work packages within SEAMLESS

- Increasing amount of available output from SEAMLESS, such as reports, software, data bases and system output

The website can be accessed through http://www.seamless-ip.org/ and the internal portal through https://portal.wur.nl/sites/seamless/default.aspx

A-4 Publishable results

The results from the SEAMLESS project are made available through its website. This is described in the previous paragraph. These results are available for scientific cooperation and work but not for commercial applications. The users of SEAMLESS output are requested to acknowledge the intellectual property rights of involved SEAMLESS participants. Available output from SEAMLESS will consist of reports, software, data bases and system output.

All publications that resulted from the scientific work within SEAMLESS, are given in Table A-5.


Page 140 of 196

TABLE A-5 List of publications from scientific work within SEAMLESS Author Title Source Pages,

status Donatelli M., L. Carlini, G. Bellocchi

A software component for estimating solar radiation

Env. Modell. Softw.Volume 21, Issue 3, March 2006

pages 411-416

Donatelli M., G. Bellocchi, L. Carlini

Sharing knowledge via software components: models on reference evapotranspiration

Eur. J. Agron.,Volume 24, Issue 2, February 2006,

pages 186-192

Rizzoli A.E, M. Donatelli, I. Athanasiadis, F. Villa, R. Muetzelfeldt, D. Huber

Semantic links in integrated modelling frameworks

In Zerger, A. and Argent, R.M. (eds) MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2005 ISBN: 0-9758400-2-9

pages 704-710

Donatelli, M., G. Bellocchi, L. Carlini, M. Colauzzi

CLIMA: a component-based weather generator

In Zerger, A. and Argent, R.M. (eds) MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2005 ISBN: 0-9758400-2-9

pages 627-633

Van der Wal, T., R. Knapen, M. Svensson, I. Athanasiadis and A.E. Rizzoli

Trade-offs in the design of cross-disciplinary software systems

Idem Pages 732-737

Van Evert, F., D. Holzworth, R. Muetzelfeldt, A.E. Rizzoli, F. Villa

Convergence in integrated modeling frameworks

Idem Pages 745-750

Villa, F. A Semantic Model of Computation for Natural System Modelling

Idem Pages 751-757

Carlini, L., M. Donatelli, G. Bellocchi

A library to generate synthetic precipitation data

Agron. J. accepted

Janssen, S., M.K. Van Ittersum

Assessing farmer behaviour as affected by policy and technological innovations: bio-economic farm models

Agricultural Systems, 2006

submitted

Reidsma, P., F. Ewert

Assessing the adaptive capacity of European agriculture under different climate and management conditions

Climatic Change, 2006 submitted

All SEAMLESS reports that can be downloaded from the SEAMLESS website, are given in Table A-6.

Table A-6 List of reports on SEAMLESS website

Deliverable Title

D0.3.3 SEAMLESS flyer

PD1.2.1 Report about Development of a conceptual framework for integrated analysis and assessment of agricultural systems in SEAMLESS-IF


Page 141 of 196

PD1.3.6 Report on Procedure for application of SEAMLESS-IF to concrete policy and innovation issues

PD1.3.7 Report specifying complementary participatory methods for SEAMLESS-IF.

PD3.3.2 Report on A generic template for FSSIM

D3.8.1 Report about key developing country features to be addressed in the global modelling

PD5.2.2 Report on Modelling Framework requirements

D5.3.1 Report on Overall architectural design

PD6.1.1 Report on The major characteristics of scenarios and agricultural systems to be studied in Test case 1

PD6.2.1 Report on the identification of indicators for Test case 1

D7.3.1 Report on Participatory methods, guidelines and good practice guidance to be applied throughout the project to enhance problem definition, co learning, synthesis and dissemination


Page 143 of 196

Annex B Composition and Terms of reference of Scientific Advisory Board and SAB report

The Scientific Advisory board has recently (i.e. 22-24 November 2005 in The Hague, Netherlands) reviewed the SEAMLESS Integrated project.

B-1 Composition of SEAMLESS Advisory Board:

1. Dr Robert Argent (chair)

Senior Research Fellow and Project Leader

Address: Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology (CRCCH)

Centre for Environmental Applied Hydrology (CEAH)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

The University of Melbourne

Vic., 3010

Australia

www.civenv.unimelb.edu.au/~argent/personal/cv.html

2. Dr Sylvia Herrmann

Acting Director of Institute of Rural Studies (Federal Agricultural Research Centre)

Address: Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft

Bundesallee 50

38116 Braunschweig

Germany

http://www.bw.fal.de/en/default.htm, www.fal.de

3. Prof. Steve McCorriston

Professor International Economics, Agricultural Economics

Address: Dept of Economics

School of Business and Economics University of Exeter Exeter, EX4 4PU Devon

England

England http://www.sobe.ex.ac.uk/about/dbf2.php?id=20040909B.txt

4. Dr Roger Moore


Page 144 of 196

Head of Thematic Data; database design and management

Address: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

Wallingford

Oxon

OX10 8BB, UK

http://www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/wq/RogerMoore.htm

5. Dr Bjørn Molt Petersen

Senior Scientist, agro-ecological modelling

Address: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences

Department of Agricultural Systems

Research Centre Foulum

P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele

Denmark

http://web.agrsci.dk/jbs/bmp/index.shtml

6. Prof. Consuelo Varela-Ortega

ETS Ingenieros Agrónomos Departamento de Agronomia Agraria

Address: Departamento de Economia Agraria

Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos

Universidad Politecnica de Madrid

Ciudad Universitaria s/n

Madrid 28040

Spain

University: www.etsia.upm.es, www.upm.es

B-2 Terms of Reference

The Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) was requested to evaluate and advice (for the coming year) on the:

• Scientific approach and output; • Organisation • Dissemination of the SEAMLESS Integrated Project.

Scientific approach and output

- Evaluate and advice on the overall scientific approach in the project


Page 145 of 196

- The scientific output and progress of the first 10 months

- Indicate the major achievements from a scientific perspective

- Indicate the major risks and problems compared to the objectives set

Input provided: DoW, key Ds and PDs, presentations and discussions during the WP1 meeting on November 22 and special meeting between the SAB and Board members (plenary and bilateral) on November 23

Collaboration and organisation

- Evaluate the modes of collaboration and organisation in relation to the objectives of the project

Input provided: information from DoW, demonstration of intranet and monitoring system, interviews with participants

Dissemination

- Dissemination to the EC and (other) Users

- Scientific dissemination

- International collaboration

Input provided: DoW, Knowledge and Dissemination Plan, presentation, results of the monitoring of dissemination

B-3 Report and Recommendations of Scientific Advisory Board

B-3.1 Overview and Recommendations

The Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to the SEAMLESS project met over the period 22-24 November 2005, with a short introductory presentation on November 21. The meeting coincided with a Work Package (WP) 1 meeting, where reporting on deliverables related largely to the contribution of WPs to the SEAMLESS-IF conceptual and operational structure. Short discussions with WP leaders were held on Day 2 of the meeting, with opportunity given for follow-up discussions.

Overall, the SAB are impressed by the coordination and quality of the work done to date and presented to the SAB. There is an obvious bias in this early phase of the SEAMLESS project towards conceptual development and issues of operational structure of the SEAMLESS-IF. It is understood that future activities will shift more towards the science of SEAMLESS, and thus provide the SAB with more opportunities to advise on the science being undertaken.

The following pages provide observations and recommendations for actions across all of SEAMLESS, as well as for specific WPs. Recommendations for operation of future SAB meetings are also given later in the report.

The recommendations for SEAMLESS and the individual WPs are repeated below (some in condensed form) for completeness.


Page 146 of 196

B-3.1.1 General • The SEAMLESS project and each WP should undertake an occasional (18 month)

assessment of the scope of activities, paying attention to the risks and consequences of increasing scope or increasing workload, particularly as tasks become delayed or increase in complexity.

B-3.1.2 WP0 • Change all 'operational prototype' references to 'working prototype'

• Feed back to the European Commission on the problems of have large numbers of partners

• Feed back to the European Commission that the project resources are appropriate to the task

• Consider reducing the number of organisations and staff on the project but keep the resources the same.

• Encourage use of the portal but try and avoid creating a ‘big brother is watching you’ atmosphere

• Consider describing the portal at the 3rd Harmoni-CA Conference

• Start planning for success now

• Implement appropriate QA across the SEAMLESS project

o Decide what is appropriate to the achievement of the goal

o Appoint a QA manager at Board level

o Appoint QA managers at WP level

o Ensure each WP has an external QA reviewer to check the QA is being implemented

o Prepare (or adopt from another project) a QA manual setting out procedures (see WP5 for an example of documentation QA)

• Remove irrelevant deliverables from the DoW

B-3.1.3 WP1 • Develop an 'integration plan' covering the dependencies of deliverables between

different WPs and the capabilities of each working prototype.

• Develop a more detailed specification of the SEAMLESS-IF that provides examples of the interactions between various components, such as specific models and specific indicators.

• Initiate development of a business plan for the future of SEAMLESS beyond 2008, including considerations of the adoption environment, user needs, the market position for the SEAMLESS-IF, decision makers at various levels and the messages that need to be conveyed to these decision makers.

• Coordinate activities with WP4 and WP5 to undertake: i) testing of the temporal (time-


Page 147 of 196

varying) operation of SEAMLESS-IF, ii) implementation of processes for calibration and validation of 'chains-of-models', iii) testing of prototype social models, and iv) clarification of the interfaces between the various components surrounding the SOFA.

• Examine and borrow from a range of activities that can assist in development and communication of the SEAMLESS-IF.

B-3.1.4 WP2 • Relate indicators to the overall cost effectiveness of alternative policy instruments

within the CAP reform agenda

• Capture the diversity of indicators and constraints across regions

• Differentiate those indicators that are inputs into scenario development and model inputs and those indicators that relate to outputs of the model(s)

• ‘Institutional indicators’ is an important conceptual development but really challenging. Ensure that sufficient science focus is given to this area.

• Link the social indicators to the modelling approach in WP3

• Examine the implementation of direct linkages of social indicators to the policy change or other exogenous changes that affect the agricultural sector in the scenario

• Define the ‘functional form’ in terms of the responsiveness of the chosen social indicators

• Include social aspects directly into the model framework via a ‘social model'

• Assess options for reorganising the work of WP2, in collaboration with WP3, to include social indicator models

• Increase focus on ‘Research on Gender’, including gender indicators, gender topics in research question of the other WP, appropriate data collection, and adaptations of models

B-3.1.5 WP3 • Provide future SAB meetings with a detailed outline of achievements and issues for

WP3.

• Undertake a review of the scientific ambitions of WP3 and assess what is realistically achievable within the time frame of the SEAMLESS project.

• Undertake validation and post-model analysis of the models used in the development of the two test cases.

• Develop a brief but clear strategy to improve coordination of WP3 activities with other WPs, particularly between WP2, WP4 and WP6.

B-3.1.6 WP4 • Consider how data will be made available and managed post SEAMLESS

• Talk to HarmoniRiB for ideas and tools for assessing uncertainty and recording uncertainty in databases


Page 148 of 196

• Talk to HarmoniRiB and others about the storage of spatio-temporal data

• Put version control in place as soon as practicable

• Clarify the objective with respect to creating a typology for farms

B-3.1.7 WP5 • In collaboration with WP0, WP1 and WP7, reduce the level of ambition and manage

user expectations for SEAMLESS-IF and the capabilities of the prototypes

• Define the interfaces between modules of the SEAMLESS-IF

• Adjust conceptual design for time-varying operation, validation and calibration

• In collaboration with WP0, introduce an appropriate level of QA

• Adopt an OpenSource licence for code and documentation

• Develop simple ways of communicating SEAMLESS concepts to users

• Check that documentation is appropriate to the audience

• Consider periods of co-located working

• Clarify the rationale for integration of ModCom, which is, roughly, a component/object handling tool embedded in an component/object handling tool

B-3.1.8 WP6 • In collaboration with WP0 and WP1, develop a strategy to avoid a tension between

more science-oriented and more user-oriented WPs, particularly to avoid conflicting goals in parallel work activities

• Clearly define the needs of WP6 in terms of input for the test cases and the role of WP6 in terms of ‘moderation’ or quality control of the inputs from various other WPs.

• Widen the scope of the test case scenarios to include ecological and social aspects

• Relate test case scenarios more to current relevant questions such as cross compliance and the second pillar

• Consider a developing country test case in a country that has a stronger relationship to the world market and to Europe.

B-3.1.9 WP7 • Produce an updated and more detailed dissemination plan.

• In coordination with WP0, build a range of dissemination material targetted to specific users.

B-3.2 General Issues SEAMLESS is a highly ambitious project in view of the time frame and resources. It is clear to the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) that there are some strategies in place to keep the


Page 149 of 196

project scope within reasonable bounds. These strategies should include assessment of the risks of 'scope-creep' across all of SEAMLESS, each of the WPs and for each of the Participant Organisations.

To ensure that such strategies are keep up to date, it is recommended that the SEAMLESS project and each WP:

• Undertake an occasional (every 18 months) assessment of the scope of activities, paying attention to the risks and consequences of increasing scope or increasing workload, particularly as tasks become delayed or increase in complexity.

B-3.3 WP 0 The first and overriding impression is that SEAMLESS is a project with a clear and worthwhile objective that builds on the work of previous programmes. So far as the SAB can ascertain, it is well managed and has a good working atmosphere in which the partners are working towards a shared goal. Of course, in any project of this size with 30 partners and 150 staff, many working part time, there will be variations in the level of motivation and commitment. However, the SAB has not detected anything in this area that they feel is a cause for concern, that cannot be managed or that is a significant threat to the project. The comments and recommendations that follow should therefore be interpreted as advice intended to help an extremely promising project to achieve its objectives.

B-3.3.1 Observations

Clarification of Objective

The DoW states that the objective is an operational prototype. This has led to some confusion as prototypes, by definition, are not operational. After discussion, it would seem that a better term would be a 'working prototype' as this does not imply that the project is in anyway attempting to produce a product fit for release into the outside world. The prototype will be designed to work at a level of reliability and ease of use necessary to demonstrate that the concepts can be implemented. This is usually many steps away from the reliability required for public release or use where important, may be safety critical, decisions can be based on the results.

Project Management

SEAMLESS represents a major project management challenge both in terms of the total resource but more importantly the large number of geographically dispersed partners from many countries and organisations with widely differing work ethics. The resources seem appropriate to the project but it is difficult to see the benefit of having so many partners and so many staff with relatively small time allocations. The management overhead at all levels becomes very high, communication is difficult and the large number of staff with small time allocations reduces the opportunity for focused effort. This last point is of critical importance to a project where the objective is not only to solve a science problem but also deliver a fully functional prototype. This should be reported back to the Commission to inform the design of future programmes. While keeping the resource the same, the project should use the rolling programme to reduce the number of partners and concentrate time on fewer people.

Meetings


Page 150 of 196

The effectiveness of meetings was difficult to assess as the SAB did not sit in on any but the material and the timing of its delivery to the SAB was good.

As an observation, the HarmonIT project which has much in common with SEAMLESS, especially WP1 and WP5 found that periods of co-located working were very effective with respect to producing working software. The HarmonIT development team met for periods of 5 days at 6 week intervals. It is emphasized that the five day periods were for work, i.e. code development and testing, not meetings in the ordinary. These meetings were very good for team building.

Communication and Control

The SAB were impressed by the design of the web portal created for project control and communication. It is obviously too early to establish whether the design is effective but it certainly has many features which other projects might wish to consider. The 3rd Harmoni-CA Conference would be a good forum at which to disseminate such information.

The project is very ambitious and it is unlikely that all the objectives will be achieved. This situation is inevitable in research and is exacerbated by the bid process. A management approach that allows the orderly adjustment of objectives as it becomes clearer as to what is realistic in the timeframe is therefore essential. With respect to control, the project appears broadly on track at present. There have been some slippages, though these are probably due to the fact that the bid process encourages the setting of unrealistic targets for the first 18 months. Revisions to the methodology proposed in the DoW, for example in WP5 from the ‘waterfall model’ to the ’agile’ approach, appear sensible and give the project a much better chance of staying on track and being able to modify objectives without losing the overall objective.

Quality Assurance

When talking to WP5 on the topic of document version control it became apparent that the project had few Quality Assurance procedures. Given the size and complexity of the project, this would seem to be an important omission. Some procedures have been implemented through the web portal but the SAB did not detect that anyone had overall responsibility for QA at Board or WP level. The recommendations below offer some concrete suggestions the board might like to consider.

Planning for Success

SEAMLESS has every prospect of delivering useful results. However, it is highly unlikely that they will be useful in any operational context. For this to be the case, the software will need to be tested far more exhaustively than will be possible within SEAMLESS and backed with a range of professional level services and documentation. A sustainable funding process will be essential as the next stage is likely to require greater funds than the research phase. It may also require a different set of partners with different skills. It will take time to plan and put these things in place. In parallel, WP7 needs to ensure that all those who will be involved in influencing and making key decisions are adequately prepared and informed in a way that maximizes the chance of success. It is essential that SEAMLESS acquires the appropriate skills for this exercise and starts the planning process immediately. Although, some steps have been taken in this direction, a much greater sense of urgency is required. Far too many projects have failed to meet their potential because they have not given any attention to this point.

PhD students and SEAMLESS

There was a low level of concern that SEAMLESS was not making the best use of PhD students or catering to their needs. To create a win-win situation, it would be worth the


Page 151 of 196

Board considering both sides needs and how they can be matched. Issues they might consider are:

• The scientific content of the tasks assigned

• The need for opportunities to publish

• Timing to match the academic year

• Matching tasks to the 3 year time frame

• Avoidance of dependence by the PhD on deliverables

• Avoidance of deliverables being dependent on the PhD

Redundant Deliverables

It is clear that some deliverables mentioned in the DoW are now redundant. After reading a number of reports, a small number left the reader with the feeling that the document had been completed simply in order to tick a box and really contained little or no useful information.

B-3.3.2 Recommendations for WP0 • Change all 'operational prototype' references to 'working prototype'

• Feed back to the European Commission on the problems of have large numbers of partners

• Feed back to the European Commission that the project resources are appropriate to the task

• Consider reducing the number of organisations and staff on the project but keep the resources the same.

• Encourage use of the portal but try and avoid creating a ‘big brother is watching you’ atmosphere

• Consider describing the portal at the 3rd Harmoni-CA Conference

• Start planning for success now

• Implement appropriate QA across the SEAMLESS project

o Decide what is appropriate to the achievement of the goal

o Appoint a QA manager at Board level

o Appoint QA managers at WP level

o Ensure each WP has an external QA reviewer to check the QA is being implemented

o Prepare (or adopt from another project) a QA manual setting out procedures (see WP5 for an example of documentation QA)

• Remove irrelevant deliverables from the DoW


Page 152 of 196

B-3.4 WP 1

WP1 has the interesting and difficult tasks of design and integration for the SEAMLESS–IF. The SAB were impressed with the quality of the work done to date and the generally high level of integrated conceptual understanding that has been developed across the SEAMLESS WPs. Overall, WP1 seems well structured, with appropriate objectives.

B-3.4.1 Observations Much work has been done on integration to date, resulting in a good conceptual understanding of the integrated nature of the SEAMELSS-IF across all WPs. It was apparent to the SAB that a next level of detail needs to be added to the integration picture. Such a level of detail should include more specific details of the interactions, dependencies and linkages between the various WPs. This will become critical in areas where progress within one WP is dependent upon something being delivered from another WP. It appeared from our discussions that there are a number of situations where one WP is expecting input or a deliverable from another WP, and the nature of that delivery is not completely understood and agreed between the two WPs.

The need for additional detail is also apparent in the specification of the SEAMLESS-IF. Much of the SEAMLESS-IF specification mentions linkages, integration, indicators or models but is not specific about the exact nature of the linkage, or which particular indicator or model type might be linked. A more detailed specification would provide a clearer indication to various WPs of their role in the SEAMELSS-IF, the specific components that they are delivering and some detail on the nature of what is being delivered.

There appears to be different understanding amongst various WPs the nature of the final output of SEAMLESS. This includes different expectations of the science to be done and the broadness of the final SEAMLESS-IF. This is partly related to the description of the 'working prototypes' being developed and the functionality that will be available within each prototype. More detailed description of the prototypes, their functions and the capability that will be delivered to end users need to be developed, in collaboration with WP0 and WP7.

Attention also needs to be paid to the future development and application of SEAMLESS-IF beyond 2008, with a start being made to this process in the near future. A business plan is required that provides a pathway to further funding and development of SEAMLESS-IF, taking into account the roles of various organisations in supporting (financially and operationally) the future of SEAMLESS.

There are a range of technical aspects of SEAMLESS-IF that need to be coordinated by WP1, primarily with WP4 and WP5. These include:

• testing of the temporal (time-varying) operation of SEAMLESS-IF

• processes for calibration and validation of 'chains-of-models'

• testing how generic the SEAMLESS-IF is in the face of future realignment of user needs

• testing of prototype social models (with WP 2 and 3)

• clarification of the interfaces between the various components surrounding the SOFA. Clarification of these interfaces will allow those WPs that are undertaking activities within one of the SEAMLESS-IF components (e.g the Knowledge-Base) to operate flexibly provided they still conform to the interface. An example might be changes


Page 153 of 196

to data base structure or nature that still conform to the interface with the SOFA.

The presentation of the model linking process within the SEAMLESS-IF appeared to make a simple concept seem complex. In collaboration with WP7, WP1 should seek to provide clearer and simpler examples of SEAMLESS-IF. Further to this, there are a range of resources and examples available from FP5 projects that can assist SEAMLESS communication and operation.

B-3.4.2 Recommendations for WP1 • Develop an 'integration plan' covering the dependencies of deliverables between

different WPs and the capabilities of each working prototype.

• Develop a more detailed specification of the SEAMLESS-IF that provides examples of the interactions between various components, such as specific models and specific indicators.

• Initiate development of a business plan for the future of SEAMLESS beyond 2008, including considerations of the adoption environment, user needs, the market position for the SEAMLESS-IF, decision makers at various levels and the messages that need to be conveyed to these decision makers.

• Coordinate activities with WP4 and WP5 to undertake: i) testing of the temporal (time-varying) operation of SEAMLESS-IF, ii) implementation of processes for calibration and validation of 'chains-of-models', iii) testing of prototype social models, and iv) clarification of the interfaces between the various components surrounding the SOFA.

• Examine and borrow from a range of activities that can assist in development and communication of the SEAMLESS-IF. This includes:

o HarmoniQuA for steps in building and running models

o FP5 project BMW for list of models

o HarmonIT for list of OpenMI compliant models

o HarmonIT demonstrations of model linking

B-3.5 WP 2 B-3.5.1 Observations WP 2 has suffered from the fact that the change of the WP leader caused several delays in the work. In the mean time, the group seems to be reorganised and has produced several outputs concerning the indicator concept, the use of institutional indicators and a proposal for their contribution to the first prototype. The proposal for the prototype has been simplified to improve linking.

The conceptual development of the indicators has to focus on whether they will be used only for the post-calculation assessment as an additional aspect or be more directly linked to the modelling. Specifically, there is a need to address issues relating to the overall cost effectiveness of alternative policy instruments within the CAP reform agenda. Another


Page 154 of 196

crucial point may be to capture the diversity of indicators and constraints across regions. Therefore, a more intensive discussion with WP3 is needed.

Another point of discussion is related to ‘institutional indicators’. This was seen as an important conceptual development but there may be significant compromises and challenges to be met.

There is a need to differentiate those indicators that are inputs into scenario development and model inputs and those indicators that relate to outputs of the model(s)

What could be seen from the discussions was that one of the main challenges of WP2 is to link the social indicators to the modelling approach in WP3. Currently, there are no direct linkages of the social indicators to the policy change or other exogenous changes that affect the agricultural sector in scenario 1. In addition, what is the ‘functional form’ in terms of the responsiveness of the chosen indicators? It has to be clarified which group has to deal with the task to make the indicators more meaningful in terms of being able to show changes if policy conditions change.

Therefore, it seems to be highly necessary to include the social aspects directly into the model framework via a ‘”social model”. This might even be a very simple approach be taking 2 or 3 social indicators and develop a functional relationship to land use changes. The approach might assure that, in terms of sustainability, the social factor is not forgotten because it is only existing in the knowledge base (that might be used or not). If at least some social indicators are included in the modelling cluster, they will be obvious even without being complete.

To reach this, the question has to be raised as to how the work can be reorganised. It might be done by reorganising the responsibility for the development of the social factors between different groups in the project (e.g. WP 2, WP3, WP5). Another way would be to give more financial support to one responsible group.

A Gender Action Plan is a required element of all Integrated Projects. First steps have been taken concerning the dimension of ‘gender in research time’ (development of the monitoring system). Additional efforts have to be undertaken in the dimension of ‘Research on Gender’. A discussion has to take place if WP 2 has to provide input in the form of gender indicators. This would imply a reformulation of the task of WP2. But additionally, every WP has to think in depth about the possibility to include gender topics in their research. As women play a crucial role in at least some European regions a gender related research approach is needed. This implies also an appropriate data collection as well as possible adaptations in the models.

B-3.5.2 Recommendations for WP2 • Relate indicators to the overall cost effectiveness of alternative policy instruments

within the CAP reform agenda

• Capture the diversity of indicators and constraints across regions

• Differentiate those indicators that are inputs into scenario development and model inputs and those indicators that relate to outputs of the model(s)

• ‘Institutional indicators’ is an important conceptual development but really challenging. Ensure that sufficient science focus is given to this area.

• Link the social indicators to the modelling approach in WP3

• Examine the implementation of direct linkages of social indicators to the policy change or other exogenous changes that affect the agricultural sector in the scenario


Page 155 of 196

• Define the ‘functional form’ in terms of the responsiveness of the chosen social indicators

• Include social aspects directly into the model framework via a ‘social model'

• Assess options for reorganising the work of WP2, in collaboration with WP3, to include social indicator models

• Increase focus on ‘Research on Gender’, including gender indicators, gender topics in research question of the other WP, appropriate data collection, and adaptations of models

B-3.6 WP 3 WP3 is concerned with the integration of models across sciences and across scales. As such, it is one of the key aspects of the research programme and arguably, at least from a scientific perspective, the most ambitious and innovative parts of the SEAMLESS project. It is also central from the perspective that this is the output of the SEAMLESS project that is likely to attract the most interest from the EU Commission and other user groups. While this aspect of the SEAMLESS project is both exciting and adventurous, it also comes with inherent pitfalls some of which we highlight below but will no doubt be familiar to those involved in model development.

Specifically, there are two innovative aspects in the work to be carried out by WP3. First, to provide a library of models that can be available to user groups to evaluate a wide range of scenarios at both the policy and the farm level. Even if WP3 was limited to making widely available models with complementary focus on agricultural issues at different scales and focussing on different aspects of agriculture (i.e. biophysical, farm level, sectoral, and EU and worldwide) on a common and usable interface, this would be a significant achievement. However, the aims of WP3 go beyond this. This leads to the second innovation which is to integrate models of different scale, disciplines and methods into a usable framework. Taken together, we are impressed at the ambitions, both in content and scale, for WP3 as clearly the usability and scientific output of the SEAMLESS project will rely, in large part, on the success of WP3.

Nevertheless, there has been significant progress. First, it is clear that different researchers from a wide range of disciplines are now able to communicate and have some common ground on which to make progress. Second, there have been several deliverables so far which reflects the commitment of researchers to make this aspect of the SEAMLESS project successful. However, given the time taken to enhance communication between disciplines, it is unsurprising that tangible progress on the integration of models has been limited to date.

B-3.6.1 Observations From an initial overview of the progress made by WP3 to date, we have comments that relate to the overall aims and ambitions of WP3 and also to the specifics of the models that have received attention so far.

Overall Aims and Ambitions

Given that this may be the most ambitious aspect of the SEAMLESS project, at least from a scientific viewpoint, there are three general issues that we would like to identify:


Page 156 of 196

• It was to some extent unclear whether the overall aim of WP3 is scientific development (i.e. lead to publications of international standing) or to provide a library of models across disciplines (with potential linkages) to be available to user groups where the scientific innovation may be limited.

• Related to this, there is likely to be a trade-off between those involved in WP3 who are attracted by the potential for scientific innovation and the challenges involved in linking models of different scales that cut across disciplines and, against this, the demands of the EU Commission to have a ‘usable’ framework. Clearly, given the limitations on time and resources, there is a potential tension between model developers and users within the time frame of the SEAMLESS project.

• Moreover, within the overall ambition of model development and the integration of models across disciplines, some consideration has to be given to model validation and the uncertainty of results produced by models (either linked or un-linked) and, more generally, to post model analysis. For example, in relation to the APES/FSSIM work, it is clear that the APES model is crucial for the success of the integrated systems performance and realism. Further, the expressed ambition of the WP3 leaders is to construct a state-of-the-art farm model, the APES/FSSIM aggregation. However, for the results to have the required scientific credibility, the final version of APES should be validated both on selected point measurements (e.g. suction cup measurements, N2O emissions) as well as medium to long-term soil organic matter (SOM) development, at least for selected regions where suitable experimental results are available. The SOM validation is desired to lend credibility to CO2 (greenhouse gas) emission calculations. Apparently, no actions to validate APES against point measurements is scheduled within the SEAMLESS project. This is an important issue that the SAB believes should receive more attention in the future.

Modelling Issues

• There seems to be an urgent need to finalize the structuring of the assembly of the different sub-components: soil, crops etc. This typifies a ‘chicken and egg’ problem of model concepts versus implementation formalities. There also seems to be an urgent need to make specific choices regarding the choice of sub-model types and their technical implementation.

• The biophysical model, as it is currently planned, has moved from a whole-farm dynamic model as sketched in the application, towards a crop rotation model with static representations of livestock. Although important feedback effects may be lost this way, and mass-balances for the whole farm may be less representative, the SAB members acknowledge the need for adjustment towards a reduced ambition for APES.

• According to the current plans, 2-4 crops can be ready in month 14 of the project. There seems to be a need to assess the realism of finishing the rest of the many crops by month 24 (“final version” according to the “Description of Work”). The SAB members are not convinced that this is achievable.

• We would like to raise the issue whether there is enough attention on the challenges of coupling sub-models within APES? That is, not from a technical but a modelling point of view. For instance, a given soil model may not be coupled successfully to any crop model.

• For Richards equation/“Macro” type water modelling, we would like to raise the question of how to obtain the many parameters needed? One possibility would be to


Page 157 of 196

consider using a simple “tipping-bucket” water model for the final version of APES, to release resources to the many other urgent matters in APES/FSSIM.

• We see the following as rather comprehensive challenges: (i) biophysical and tactical decisions modelling of grazing animals; (ii) region specific crop rotation generation; (iii) Realistic influence of prices and other externalities on shifts in crop composition and fertiliser application levels.

• We wish to draw attention to the importance of dominant manure handling systems in different regions (connection to WP4). These systems are very diverse, and roughly display a north-south gradient in regard to the proportion of ammonia lost. This proportion is one of the crucial factors influencing how the N-surplus of a given livestock farm predominantly is lost to the environment.

• Common phenological models are only portable within a narrow climatic range, and generally have poor to fair vernalisation models, if any at all. We consider the best obtainable phenology modelling essential to achieve the required degree of geographic portability. Adding to this, many varieties are used in the EU, so thought on how phenology parameters for the main varieties might be included in the project tasks.

• Robust and realistic simulation capabilities of co-existence of plant species are still at the border of the present state-of-the-art. Examples for this are grass-clover leys, undersown crops (catch crops, establishment of leys) and competing weeds. How to handle (or cope with ignoring) this within SEAMLESS may require attention in the near future.

• The actually achieved yields are in many parts of EU significantly below the potential yields under optimal management. Unmodified, most models will at its best give results in the vicinity of the potential yields. Procedures for dealing with this problem in a region-specific context are not trivial, and might require attention.

• Regarding pesticide emission modelling: The requested parameters for each of the multitude of active substances utilised in the EU are absent. Without such parameters, the APES can merely outline the possibilities of the system with regard to pesticide emissions. Adjusting the ambition level for pesticide modelling may liberate resources for other tasks in WP3.

• In discussion with WP2, considerable discussion was placed on the role of so-called ‘institutional indicators’. It was, however, not clear to the SAB how these may be coordinated with the work of WP3, if at all.

• Similarly, in discussion with WP6, it was clear that the aim of this group was to coordinate work and formulate discussion between the different WPs to produce usable research that would be of interest to user groups and tangible evidence that the SEAMLESS project will provide a framework that can be used for policy analysis and other scenarios that is related to the agreed test cases. This may raise potential conflicts between the scientific ambitions of WP3.

• There should also be clearer coordination between WP6 in terms of the baseline scenario for policy changes. This relates more to the economic modelling associated with Test Case 1. Specifically, the model will be calibrated on data that relates to the existing situation which relates to an incomplete reform process and this should be tied more closely with the development of the appropriate policy scenarios.


Page 158 of 196

B-3.6.2 Recommendations for WP3 • Given the importance of WP3 to the overall direction and success of the

SEAMLESS project, both in terms of the potential scientific achievement and the development of a framework that will be available to user groups, it would be desirable to have a full presentation to the next SAB meeting and a detailed outline of achievements and issues.

• Given the overall ambitions of WP3 in terms of scientific achievements and the challenges involved in integrating models of different scales and across disciplines, but the constraints involved in the framework to be available to user groups within a four year time frame, we recommend that due consideration be given to the scientific ambitions of the project and what is realistically achievable within the time frame of the SEAMLESS project.

• Undertake validation and post-model analysis of the models used in the development of the two test cases.

• Develop a brief but clear strategy to improve coordination of WP3 activities with other WPs, particularly between WP2, WP4 and WP6.

B-3.7 WP 4 B-3.7.1 Observations The SAB had found it difficult to assess from the DoW the magnitude of the WP4 task and therefore its feasibility with respect to the resources available. Creating pan European datasets is normally an extremely difficult task as it requires negotiation with many organisations with different rules, working to different standards, using different national and scientific languages and terminologies, not to mention formats, definitions and units.

Discussion with the WP4 leaders indicated that the intention was to gather only publicly available data sets for which pan European coverage already existed. Indeed many of the data sets were already held by one or other of the partners. The number of data sets for which there were unresolved licence issues was small and these data sets were not critical to the project’s success. The SAB therefore felt reasonably confident that the task could be accomplished with the resources available. Sub-tasks such as the application of spatial transformations were not considered to represent major risk areas.

In so far as the SAB could judge from the listings, the metadata catalogue appeared to be a thorough piece of work. The real test will be when users try to find data sets. Maintenance of the catalogue did not appear to be an issue as there was no intention to update the data. However, it will be an issue in the future. Discussion on this point revealed that no version control procedures were in place. The SAB feels it would be prudent to remedy this as soon as resources allow.

It is not clear whether, in the future, the project will be able to rely solely on publicly available data sets. For many users, SEAMLESS will only be useful if it is accompanied by easily accessible, affordable data sets. This is both a problem and an opportunity for someone, but, however it is viewed, it needs to be addressed in the business plan. Issues will be:

• Data set creation

• Maintenance


Page 159 of 196

• Distribution

• Funding

At the moment, all the data sets represent a snapshot at a moment in time. It is foreseeable that there will be a demand for time-series versions of these data sets. It would be wise therefore for WP1, WP4 and WP5 to consider now the implications for data formats, database design and metadata of date stamping the data. In this context it would be worth talking to the HarmoniRiB project who have considered the issues associated with spatio-temporal data sets in some detail.

The level of uncertainty in data and model output affects decisions. It is therefore important to be able to assess and record the uncertainty in data. Again, it might be useful to talk to HarmoniRiB, which has developed an uncertainty assessment tool and extended its database design so that it can carry descriptions of uncertainty at the level of each observed value.

At present, it is proposed to hold the data in ASCII files which users may download. This seems a practical first step but the SAB wondered whether it was a viable long term solution given the objectives of the framework. Again, it might be useful to discuss alternative strategies for storing these data with HarmoniRiB and others.

The SAB were surprised that the project was only considering gridded GIS data sets.

The SAB were unclear as to the objective with respect to creating a typology for farms and where in the project this work should be done.

B-3.7.2 Recommendations for WP4 • Consider how data will be made available and managed post SEAMLESS

• Talk to HarmoniRiB for ideas and tools for assessing uncertainty and recording uncertainty in databases

• Talk to HarmoniRiB and others about the storage of spatio-temporal data

• Put version control in place as soon as practicable

• Clarify the objective with respect to creating a typology for farms

B-3.8 WP 5 B-3.8.1 Observations

High level concept

The SAB considered that the WP was broadly on track. They were happy with the generic modular approach outlined. It seems important that now the modules are identified, the interfaces are defined. The SAB agreed strongly with the proposal to build specific applications from the generic system. Many users find generic systems and concepts difficult to handle.

The only slight reservation concerned performance.


Page 160 of 196

Requirements and change of approach

The SAB were not surprised about the users’ inability to articulate their needs. This has occurred in many projects, AQASTRESS and HarmoniRiB being two examples. The decision to move from the ‘waterfall’ approach to an ‘agile’ approach seems eminently sensible provided it is not abused and used as a cover for underperformance or lack of rigour in the development process.

This WP is critical to the success of the project but is very high risk. While the ‘agile’ approach handles part of the risk, the preparation of a rather more considered contingency plan would seem to be a wise move. Careful monitoring of resources will be important so that any corrective action can be taken in time.

Controlling expectation

There were certain areas where it would seem relatively simple to scale down the objective without any significant loss to the project as a whole, storing declarative descriptions of models being an example. It is essential that user expectations are controlled. The creation of unrealistic demonstrations can be fatally damaging to a project.

Omissions from the conceptual design

By way of contrast there were also areas where certain key concepts needed adding to the design now as to do so later would have immense resource implications. Examples are time-dynamic operation, calibration and validation.

Ontologies

The SAB accept the concept of ontologies, indeed they are clearly key to making the system generic. However, experience shows that populating and maintaining ontologies has a low success rate. The ergonomic design of the ontology editor is therefore critically important.

Communicating concepts to users

Once the design concepts are stable, an important part of WP5’s job will be communicating them to users. The presentations to the SAB were very variable in the degree to which they succeeded in communicating the ideas. It might be an idea to discuss with HarmonIT how they attempted to deal with this problem.

Documentation

The audience for some of the documentation (ie. PD reports) is not at all clear.

Quality assurance

No quality assurance procedures were in place. On a project of this scale and complexity, this is a matter for concern and should be addressed immediately.

Co-located working

There have to be some concerns as to whether software developed in multiple locations will work when it is all brought together. It would be worth discussing with HarmonIT how they addressed this issue.

B-3.8.2 Recommendations for WP5 • In collaboration with WP0, WP1 and WP7, reduce the level of ambition and manage

user expectations for SEAMLESS-IF and the capabilities of the prototypes.

• Define the interfaces between modules of the SEAMLESS-IF


Page 161 of 196

• Adjust conceptual design for time-varying operation, validation and calibration

• In collaboration with WP0, introduce an appropriate level of QA, including:

o Adding a QA page at start of all documents, listing Title, Editor, Authors, Document Production, Version, Date, Status, Copyright

o Specify and adopt QA procedures for code development

o Appoint a WP QA Manager

o Appoint external reviewer

o Specify and adopt coding procedures

o Implement rigorous version control procedures

o Specify and adopt bug and handling reporting procedure

o Specify and adopt release procedure

• Adopt an OpenSource licence for code and documentation

• Develop simple ways of communicating SEAMLESS concepts to users

• Check that documentation is appropriate to the audience

• Consider periods of co-located working

• Clarify the rationale for integration of ModCom, which is, roughly, a component/object handling tool embedded in an component/object handling tool

B-3.9 WP 6 B-3.9.1 Observations WP 6 has the central role of testing, evaluating and improving of SEAMLESS-IF by applying it in test cases. Therefore, WP 6 plays a crucial role in balancing the scientific challenges and the application of the tool. Additionally, WP6 has to lead the communication between the indicator development and the modelling.

Balancing the needs of the user applications with the scientific developments in other WPs might create a potential tension between more science-oriented and more user-oriented WPs. This issue has to be addressed immediately to find a solution to avoid competing, parallel work in both areas. WP6 can provide the problem analysis in this area, but needs to work with WP0 and Wp1 to coordinate science and user focussed activities.

The preparations for the first test case are underway and, apart from some minor problems with the Polish partners, seem to run well. The needs of the test cases result in a ‘demanding’ role for WP6 and during the discussion it was not evident if the needs of WP6 are clear for each other WP. But there is also the question of how to coordinate the input deliveries for WP6 in time.

Another open question was the role of WP6 concerning the responsibility for the ‘quality control’ (e.g. feasibility of indicators, usefulness of the models).

Several questions arose over the scenario definitions, including the definition of the scenarios in terms of reflecting the relevant questions (why CAP 2003 as baseline?), the inclusion of relevant (e.g. ecological, social) indicators, and the usefulness of the Mali Test case.


Page 162 of 196

B-3.9.2 Recommendations for WP6 • In collaboration with WP0 and WP1, develop a strategy to avoid a tension between

more science-oriented and more user-oriented WPs, particularly to avoid conflicting goals in parallel work activities

• Clearly define the needs of WP6 in terms of input for the test cases and the role of WP6 in terms of ‘moderation’ or quality control of the inputs from various other WPs.

• Widen the scope of the test case scenarios to include ecological and social aspects

• Relate test case scenarios more to current relevant questions such as cross compliance and the second pillar

• Consider a developing country test case in a country that has a stronger relationship to the world market and to Europe.

B-3.10 WP 7

This WP has the overall task of coordinating the dissemination and training for the SEAMLESS-IF, and so is the primary WP for communicating with users at a range of levels.

B-3.10.1 Observations It is clear from the discussions and presentations that various DG (Environment, Agriculture, Research etc.) are intended as the Prime Users of the outcomes of SEAMLESS. The plan for engaging these 'users' appears to be adequate, although within these organisations attention must be paid to the distinction between the levels of users (e.g. players, viewers) and messages delivered to these users.

The definitions of users outside of the Prime Users is less clear, as is the dissemination plans for these various other users. A more targetted approach is required to identify and plan dissemination activities across a range of other users. These users include:

• International organisations, such as FAO, IFPRI

• National and multi-national organisations, such as national government institutions (e.g. Agriculture), producer organisations for various agricultural sectors and industries, multi-national river basin organisations

• Regional organisations, such as river basin or environmental management organisations

SEAMLESS should target specific organisations within these general groups, focussing on those that are most aligned with the SEAMLESS goals and outcomes. For these various organisations, and the different types of users within them, the dissemination and training material should be tailored, identifying specific possible solutions arising for the generic SEAMLESS approach.

The marketing of possible tailored solutions should highlight:

• The potential of the SEAMLESS-IF to address a range of relevant problems

• The flexibility of the overall system


Page 163 of 196

• The openness of the system

• The different levels of detail and usability that are available for different use types

Once various institutions, and the users within these, have been identified, SEAMLESS should aim to build upon the linkages and knowledge of the national research groups within SEAMLESS to assist WP7 in the dissemination process.

B-3.10.2 Recommendations for WP7 • Produce an updated dissemination plan that identifies specific user organisations

across a range of international and national levels, identifies the users types within these organisations, and provides a plan for the dissemination activities that are specific to the user types.

• In coordination with WP0, build a range of dissemination material (publications, presentations) that relates to the 'real world' adoption environment of intended users, avoids jargon, conveys a simple message through graphics and text, and which reflects appropriate gender aspects in both the SEAMLESS research and the adoption environment.

B-3.11 Recommendations for Future SAB Meetings Overall, the operation of the SAB went smoothly, with sufficient time given to information gathering, writing and reporting to the SEAMLESS Board. Three days is considered a sufficient time for a SAB meeting, providing information delivery to the SAB is well structured.

The operation of the SAB was influenced by the conjunction of the SAB meeting with that of WP1. Thus, the presentations seen by the SAB were largely related to delivery of WP1 PDs, although these did cover the contribution of all WPs to the conceptual and operational structure of the SEAMLESS-IF.

For smooth operation of future SAB, it is recommended that:

• Each WP be asked to present information on scientific and application activities;

• These presentations be focussed on providing information that is specifically relevant to fulfilling the SAB Terms of Reference

• That these presentations take place over 1 – 1.5 days, with time in between for discussion and report preparation.

• Opportunity be given for discussions with WP leaders for time up to 1-2 hours.

• The opportunity be given to the SAB before the meeting to request a limited number of specific presentations on specific topics from WP participants.


Page 165 of 196

Annex C SEAMLESS Newsletter


Page 166 of 196


Page 167 of 196


Page 168 of 196


Page 169 of 196

Annex D Gender Action Plan and Monitoring

D-1 Introduction The Gender Action Plan (GAP) was approved by the EC in the third Quarter 2005, and is formally operational since then. The GAP is being implemented as planned; however, due to the delay in commencment some areas will require corrective actions in the coming period. SEAMLESS has met the targets set for 2005 in respect of women’s participation. Issues relating to gender in research content are also being progressively addressed across Work Packages.

The global aim of the SEAMLESS Gender Action Plan is to ‘grow’ a culture of gender awareness within and across the project through the implemenation of a gender equality strategy (i.e. to mainstream gender equality). The Gender objectives of SEAMLESS are the following:

• To promote the equal participation of women and men at all project levels;

• To promote the engagement with gender issues in the research carried out; and

• To link women researchers in SEAMLESS with networks of women researchers.

Two categories of actions are undertaken in pursuance of these objectives: (a) those which aim to promote women’s scientists’ participation in SEAMLESS research and (b) those which aim to promote the engagement with gender issues in the research undertaken. Assessing the progress of SEAMLESS towards the attainment of these objectives is undertaken by monitoring the composition of the projects’ workforce and recording the processes and issues arising in respect of the engagement, in theoretical and methodological, of gender issues in the research activities of the project.

There are two instruments used by SEAMLESS in pursuance of the objectives of the GAP: (a) Partner monitoring and (b) a Gender Action Review Report, which is to be completed on a biannual basis.

Partner Monitoring The Gender information is collected from participants within the SEAMLESS project through the monitoring system, which system assists in collecting and storing data on gender issues and a range of other project related issues. The collected gender information is the following:

• gender statistics (by gender and role as for example WP leader, junior researcher et cetera);

• gender awareness activities;

• promotion of gender balance activities.

Information on actions undertaken (especially in respect of gender awareness activies and promotion of gender balance) is collected and partners are asked to rate the success level (1-5, where 1 is poor and 5 is excellent). Respondents are also asked to provide comments on the actions undertaken.

Gender Action Review Report


Page 170 of 196

The Gender Action Review Report was piloted in Quarter 4 2005 and aims to capture issues relating to the incorporation of a gender perspective into the scientific research activities of the various work packages (as appropriate). This instrument is designed for completion by the Work Package Leader. The form comprises a series of open ended questions relating to activities undertaken and planned activities in respect of the following:

• gender balance in the WP and their view on this issue;

• gender issues in SEAMLESS actions (relating to dissemination activies, participation in SEAMLESS training events);

• gender issues in SEAMLESS research.

SEAMLESS WP leaders are asked to record their views on the key gender issues in the project and to propose responses to these issues.

D-2 Gender Action Plan: Actions undertaken in 2005

The Gender Action Plan sets out a series of activities in pursuance of the objectives outlined above. An elaboration of the GAP was prepared and the GAP was accepted by the EC by the end of Quarter 3 2005.

The following activities took place:

1. Monitoring: Ongoing discussions with WP0 in respect of the monitoring requirements of the GAP took place. Review of data gathered. Distribution of the Gender Action Review Record to WP leaders

2. Project Meetings with SEAMLESS Board (November 2005); meeting with SEAMLESS Advisory Board member (November 2005)

3. Dedicated ‘Gender Equality Issues’ section on the SEAMLESS portal and identification of relevant European Commission webites (Science – Society) and relevant resources, including details of MISSOC (a listing of social protection measures in place in Member States) and a glossary of gender equality related terms.

Delayed actions Due to the unscheduled delay in commencing the activities associated with the GAP, one key activity was delayed: the gender task expert will build contact with and support networks of women in science such as the Helsinki Group on Women in Sciences. All actions are ongoing in accordance with the schedule initially proposed, but are not as developed as planned. In particular, ‘teething’ issues relating to specific parts of the data collection exercises have emerged and will be resolved in the coming period.

Outputs from Gender activities in 2005 are:

1. Gender Action Plan

2. Gender Equality monitoring instruments (via the monitoring system and the Gender Action Review Report)

3. Presentation to the SEAMLESS Board on the GAP

4. Gender ‘space’ on the SEAMLESS portal.


Page 171 of 196

D-3 Results from Monitoring The partner monitoring resulted in information on gender composition of SEAMLESS staff, on progress towards the attainment of gender targets, gender awareness, women in SEAMLESS research, and challenges for the gender action plan. These are described in the following.

D-3.1 Gender and Research: Composition of the SEAMLESS Project Staff

Of the 202 staff members in SEAMLESS (a figure which includes the categories of manager, WP leader, experienced and early researcher and PhD students and others) the composition at the end of December 2005 was as follows:

Male: 152 (75%)

Female: 46 (23%)

Not identified: 04 (2%) (‘new researcher’)

Total: 202 (100%)

Of the eight Work Packages (WP0 –WP7), one Leader is female. Across the participating institutions, however, there is a higher number of women leading ‘local’ elements of SEAMLESS. Table D-1 gives an indication of institutional roles and the fraction of women involved.

Table D-1 Number of men and women involved in SEAMLESS-IP in different institutional roles as monitored in July 2005

Gender

Institutional role

Men Women Total % Women

Manager ** 12 0 12 0%

WP Leader ** 23 5 28 18%

Experienced Researcher

52 12 64 19%

Early Researcher 15 10 25 40%

PhD Student 18 5 23 22%

Technical Staff 11 3 14 21%

Other 7 7 14 50%

Totals 138 42 180 23%

D-3.2 Gender distribution by Work Packages

One of the issues which has ermerged, relates to the disaggregation of the figures in Table D-1 by Work Package. Some Work Packages have a relatively greater number of women researcher, often related to the scientific topic. WP2 is the only WP which is led by a woman. The gender information by work package in Table D-2 is for indicative purposes only. Gaps in recording the gender of researchers led to the counting of unidentified researchers as male.


Page 172 of 196

Hence, the figures in Table D-2 relating to women researchers may be underestimated. This will be rectified for the next reporting period.

Table D-2 Number of men and women involved in the different work packages of SEAMLESS project

Work Package Total Men Women % Women

WP0 21 15 6 29%

WP1 34 24 10 29%

WP2 42 31 11 26%

WP3 73 58 15 21%

WP4 13 10 3 23%

WP5 26 23 3 12%

WP6 41 34 7 17%

WP7 18 12 6 33%

The total figures in Table D-2 are greater than the number of researchers as some researchers work in more than one WP. Specific efforts to promote women researchers’ participation in SEAMLESS-IP will be particularly focused on the WP’s with currently low numbers during the coming period.

D-3.3 Progress towards the Attainment of Targets

SEAMLESS-IP has set specific targets relating to the participation of women in the project. These targets are to be used for the purpose of monitoring progress towards the attainment of the targets, i.e. a more balanced participation of women and men in the project. Table D-3 shows the participation of women and men in the project and also the targets for 2005 and the final year 2008. These figures indicate that the project is progressing towards a more balanced participation of women and men in the project.

Table D-3 Fraction of women in different staff positions and actions within SEAMLESS-IP at the start of the project, at the end of 2005 and according to the targets for 2005 and the final year (2008) of the project

Area Situation at start of project

Situation at 31 December 2005

Target of % women for year reported

(2008 target) Management

SEAMLESS Board 100 % (n=10) men

0 % (n=0) women

9 man

1 woman (10%)

2005 Target of 10% met

(20%)

Research

Research Staff 83% (n=113) men

17% (n=23)women

75% men

23% women

2005 Target of 20% met

(30%)

SEAMLESS Actions


Page 173 of 196

Engagement with User groups

% ( n) men

% ( n) women

No data available

End 2005: 10%

End 2008: 35%

Knowledge transfer events – participants

% ( n) men

% ( n) women

No data available

End 2005: 10%

End 2008: 35%

Dissemination events

• Conference presentations

• Media events • Publications –

first authorship • Publications-

joint authorship

% ( n) men % ( n) women

62.5% men 37.5% women

No data available

Idem

2005 Target of 15% met (conference presentions)

(30%)

To foster knowledge dissemination of project outcomes, a meeting with the primary user group, mainly DGs of the European Commission, took place in October 2005. No women were amongst this user group. To some extent, therefore, the composition of user groups and the related targets, were set with an understanding that SEAMLESS would be able to influence this composition – this is clearly not the case. No data were available for knowledge transfer events as these have not yet taken place. The data on conference presentations suggest that the target has been exceeded.

D-3.4 Gender Awareness

The Partner Monitoring asks partners about their efforts to promote gender awareness. For this item, only three of the 30 institutions responded. One noted that ‘All WPx participants (at the institution) have been informed of gender issues ‘.

The actions included awareness raising, ethnic diversity and mentoring programmes. Success of these measures were variously rated (from 5 ‘excellent’ to ‘2’ poor). Other actions were special career training for female scientists.

D-3.5 Women in Research

Both the Partners in the project through the monitoring system and the Work Package leaders have been asked for details about how they have tried to increase the number of women researchers in their Work Packages.

The partners who responded to the questions (40%), reported the following actions to promote gender equality within the project:

- Equal opportunities monitoring 4

- Recruitment effort 5

- Childcare 2

- Teleworking 2

- Part-time working 3

- Flexible time arrangements 5


Page 174 of 196

In respect of the above, partners noted that either part-time working was well established (for example in one institute it was 30% - 20% male, 50% female) or it was not an established feature (no staff work part-time). Similarly, policies for institutions, relating to flexible working hours, are extended to SEAMLESS researchers. One institution noted that as in their institute more than 50% of researchers are female, no actions is considered necessary. Others noted that home working/teleworking is supported by having the necesasry infrastructure in place (e.g. access to university files).

The Work Package Leaders provided further details of specific actions, for example:

- in relation to recruitment: ‘we have advertised SEAMLESS positions with a clear invitation to female candidates to respond (WP0) ‘

- One partner noted that it had developed and “offers special courses to develop communicaion and leadershiop skills for women scientistis”. Women researchers in SEAMLESS are encouraged to participate.

- Skills transfer and forms of mentoring are also being implemented: ‘A female junior post-doc has been appointed to work in close cooperation of the leader and co-leader (WP1) ‘

- Promotion of the active particiation of women researchers is also being attempted, for example, through specific requests for presenations.

- One of the issues which arises in respect of gender issues and individual Work Packages is that, some Work Packages have greater numbers of women researchers than others, a situation which has been related to the subject matter of the different Work Packages – i.e. the more technical and natural sciences focused the Work Package, the lower numbers of women researchers, reflective of the wider sitaution in the natural sciences field.

- “WP2 is a relatively gender balanced WP…”

- ‘it is important and meaningful (to monitor the participation of women in SEAMLESS) However, corrective actions to promote the participation of women cannot be decoupled from the fact that in IT in general the participation is fairly low.’

There is a need to monitor the gender composition of the different Work Packages – the variable distribution of women across work packages will require a reworking of how data are presented, namely there will be a need to chart progress in respect of gender equality isseus by Work Package, not only by overall project.

The SEAMLESS Coordinator issued guidance on appropriate wording of advertisements to all participating institutions in respect of recruitment efforts. However, as the Coordinator of SEAMLESS noted in respect of the coordinating institution, composition of staf working for SEAMLESS cannot easily be changed because (1) few women involved in quantitative agricultural and environmental studies; (2) few new staff positions coming available (in the institution); and (3) most positions have been filled on the basis of the long-term tasks and the work of the research group, such as scientific education and research at the university.

In the partners’ monitoring exercise, it was noted that within institutions, often there is gender balance between the male and female researchers: it is within SEAMLESS (due to its topic area) that the gender difference is evidenced: ‘ In our institute more than 50% of research staff are women. In relation to students, the proportion of women is around 40%. No specific measures seen necessary in this context ‘

Currently, the institute consists of a majority of female researchers. Only the involvement in SEAMLESS is mainly based on male researchers.

Presumptions of a wide inbalance/inequality on the basis of a review of the gender composition of SEAMLESS is not valid. One partner noted that ‘not enough women choose


Page 175 of 196

to work as computer scientists and it foresees no ‘space for improvement here’, noting ‘Women do not like compuer science’.

D-3.6 Gender and SEAMLESS Actions

The extent to which SEAMLESS activities are gender equal is a secondary element of the objective relating to the promotion of gender equality between women and men.

Questions relating to participation of women in conferences, specific knowledge transfer events and in user groups were recorded

Table D-4 Number of conference presentations, dissemination events, staff training events, publications and meetings with user groups within the SEAMLESS-IP (number of women within brackets)

Number of conference presentations (no. of women)

Number of dissemination events (no. of women)

Number of staff training events (no. of women)

Number of publications (no. of women first author/ second author (x/x) )

Number of meetings with user groups (no. of women)

WP0 3 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0)

WP1 7 (2/2)

WP2 1 (1) 0(0) 0 (0) 5 (1/3) 0 (0)

WP 5 5 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0/1)

WP1 noted that 7 WP meetings were organised over the course of 2005 involving 2-5 women participants: as scientists (1) and as administrative support (1). Similarly WP5 reported that the meetings held were internal project meetings.

D-4 Gender in Research

The Gender Action Review Report asked WP leaders whether gender issues were relevant to their area of research. Some answers were:

- We intend to demonstrate how gender issues can be incorporated in a consistent fashion in SEAMLESS-IF in order to comprehensively address issues such as rural employment and behaviour changes of farming systems. SEAMLESS-IF should enable the analysis of relationships between gender differences and impacts on agricultural systems and behaviour of farmers and herders. So far, we have only touched this issue marginally, but the activity has not been finished yet (WP1).

- In relation to the development of indicators, gender issues are important both in relation to economic and social indicators. In a more indirect way it is related to assessment of institutional feasibility. We currently try to increase the available gender data and we are in discussion with the people developing the rural labour market model to include gender issues (WP2).


Page 176 of 196

- In the work of other Work Packages (e.g. WP5 about software architecture and implementation) this gender issue was not considered as relevant.

The SEAMLESS Advisory Board (SAB) raised in its report (Annex B) to the SEAMLESS Board some questions about gender issues and proposed some recommendations. The response of the SEAMLESS Board about these gender issues was as follows:

- Several of the recommendations of the SAB are related to the lack of models in the social area and the need for increased cooperation between WP2 and WP3. The social area has, compared to the economic and environmental areas, a small budget in SEAMLES. To create indicators as well as institutional assessments that make sense, several WPs need to cooperate to make the best out of the present budget allocation.

- It is also recommended that WP2 will continue to include gender related indicators in our work. WP4 has to ensure that data are available and WP3 should ensure that this aspect is included in some of their models

D-5 Conclusion The Gender Action Plan has three specific objectives:

- participation of women as researchers in SEAMLESS

- engagement with gender in the research programme of SEAMLESS-IP

- networking of women scientists.

Actions which contribute to these objectives, are the awareness raising activities via the provision of relevant information (European Commission communications on gender mainstreaming, glossary of terminology, relevant examples of possible actions).

The GAP is being implemented as planned and the available evidence suggests progress towards the attainment of objectives, particularly in respect of the quantitative targets set.

The monitoring apparatus may need to be modified and attention will be focused on this during the first quarter of 2006.


Page 177 of 196

Annex E On-line reporting questionnaires

The following questionnaires have been completed and have been submitted to the FP6 questionnaire site of the EC:

- Interim science and society reporting questionnaire, completed by co-ordinator;

- Interim reporting on the implementation of the gender action plan, completed by co-ordinator

- Interim reporting on the implementation of the gender action plan, completed by each of the participants in the SEAMLESS-IP

- Interim socio-economic reporting questionnaire, completed by each of the participants in the SEAMLESS-IP

The Interim socio-economic reporting questionnaire as completed by the co-ordinator (Wageningen University), is given in the following. This should be considered as a proof of the submission of all the questionnaires for the SEAMLESS-IP as mentioned above.


Page 178 of 196


Page 179 of 196


Page 180 of 196


Page 181 of 196


Page 183 of 196

Annex F Letter to EC about changed partnership of Simulistics


Page 184 of 196


Page 185 of 196


Page 186 of 196


Page 187 of 196


Page 188 of 196


Page 189 of 196

Annex G Programme of kick-off meeting of SEAMLESS-IP in Lund

System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling;

Linking European Science and Society

2nd Announcement

Kick-off Meeting

January 25 – 28, 2005

at

Lund University, Sweden

Organisers

LUCSUS, Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, Sweden (formerly known as Centre for Environmental Studies)

Wageningen University, The Netherlands


Page 190 of 196

Programme

Tuesday, January 25 (GEOCENTRE)

Arrival participants

11:00 Registration

12:00 Joint Lunch at GEOCENTRE

Plenary session

13:30 Opening and Welcome

13:45 Presentation SEAMLESS and its Work Packages – Co-ordinator and WP-leaders

14:30 Informative questions

14:45 Introduction of the Consortium (partners 1-16) - Partner representatives

15:30 Tea Break

16:00 Introduction of the Consortium (partners 17-32) – Partner representatives

16:45 Introduction from DG-Research – Daniel Deybe (EC)

17:00 Introduction SENSOR – Katharina Helming (ZALF, Germany)

17:15 Questions

17.20 WP1 introduction

17:40 Discussion

Evening: Joint informal dinner at GEOCENTRE, WP-wise

Wednesday, January 26 (Häckeberga Castle)

8:15 Buss (from Hotel Sparta and Concordia) transfer to Häckeberga Castle

9:00 Parallel sessions to be chaired by WP-leaders*

• WP2 (Indicators) • WP3 (Tools and Models – perhaps with parallel session) • WP4 (Data)

12:00 Lunch and a short walk in the park

Plenary session

13:30 Organisational and administrative issues:

• Management structure (Board and General Assembly) • Reporting to EC • Knowledge and Dissemination plan (publications, presentations, etc.)


Page 191 of 196

• Financial aspects • Planning and monitoring • IPR

14:15 Intranet demonstration and questions

14:40 Feedback from parallel sessions, WP2, 3 and 4

15:15 Tea Break

15:40 Parallel sessions to be chaired by WP-leaders*

• WP3 (Tools and Models) • WP5 (SEAMFRAME software) • WP6 (Test cases) • WP7 (User interaction and dissemination)

17:00 Short break with refreshments, then continued parallel sessions until 18:30

19:00 Dinner at the castle

22:00 Back in Lund

*Suggested allocation to the parallel sessions will be done in advance

Thursday, January 27 (GEOCENTRE)

8:30 Board members meeting

9:00 Short Plenary session with feedback from parallel sessions previous day

9:45 Parallel Cross WP-sessions*

• modelling and software (WP3, WP5 – chair Mats Svensson) • indicators, models and data (WP2, WP3, WP4, WP6 – chair Erling Andersen) • participatory trajectories (WP7, WP2, WP6 – chair Ann-Katrin Bäcklund)

12:00 Lunch

Plenary session

13:15 Feedback and synthesis of parallel sessions

15:00 Parallel sessions, including WP1 meeting

Evening:

Joint informal dinner at Restaurant Finn Inn

* Participants choose session, during the previous day


Page 192 of 196

Friday, January 28 (GEOCENTRE)

9:00 1st General Assembly meeting: partner representatives only

10:45 2nd Board meeting

Rooms for extra parallel sessions will be available upon request


Page 193 of 196

Annex H Example of Deliverable evaluation report

Evaluation of deliverables in SEAMLESS

Date of evaluation: October 10, 2005

Name of deliverable: Developing country features to be addressed in the global modeling

Number of deliverable: D3.8.1

Version (date) of deliverable: September 30, 2005

Evaluation undertaken by: Floor Brouwer and Martin van Ittersum

Key objectives of deliverable: Identify key developing country features to be addressed in the global modeling exercise.

Comments: The ambitions of global modeling for SEAMLESS are essentially to identify any linkages between the CAP (and global agreements on trade, biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions) with sustainable development in developing countries. Such efforts could provide a basis to assess the room for manoeuvre for European policy makers to strengthen sustainable development in developing countries (this may be at two levels of ambition: 1. no negative effects of EU policies on DCs; 2. positive effects on SD of DCs). This of course is a huge task, and proper arguments are essential to develop a realistic planning of work.

This is an informative report that presents much useful information on the economic aspects of SD in a developing countries and how this can be assessed via economic modelling approaches. The report has a very clear structure.

It is heavily biased towards the economic aspects and this contrasts with the statement (which is completely right) on page 35: “In line with the SEAMLESS objectives, the impact on third countries should be analyzed in terms of ecological sustainability, economic sustainability and human development.” It remains very unclear how in particular the environmental issues will be dealt with. A second major comment is that it still remains quite open on the work that will be done precisely at micro-national level (Section 7).


Page 194 of 196

Chapter 2 offers a good overview of key economic features that are vital to the economies of LDCs. An in-depth list of economic features is provided in Section 2.1, and the modeling tools that are currently available seem to be insufficient in the field of economics (e.g. investments and market developments), but this possibly might be even more so in the social domain (e.g. poverty alleviation) and environmental domain.

Section 2.10: it is very unclear how these specific issues have been derived from Sections 2.1-2.9; what is the underlying analysis?

The conclusions of Chapter 2 include a wide list of options to cover in the modeling work. Are we going to cover them all in the modeling work? How do you plan to select? Here (second bullet in Section 2.10), water is identified as a possible constraint to resources. However, this may apply to land as well, with land use policies that are a key factor to controlling agricultural production in a large number of developing countries. Also, bullet 7 (in Section 2.10) does focus on home-consumption. Is home-production of similar importance to developing countries?

Chapter 3 examines what features might be implemented in the CGE models. This Chapter is very economic and not accessible (as is true for quite a few other parts in the document) for non-economists. No specific thoughts seem to be given to the environmental dimension of sustainable development, including flows of nutrients and water in the context of liberalization of agricultural trade. Also, what linkages are important on energy and emissions of greenhouse gas emissions?

In Chapter 4, a dynamic version of GTAP is mentioned as a promising tool for integration with SEAMLESS-IF. This already seems to be taken up by the GTAP consortium. Also, in Section 4.2 clarifies that natural resources and environmental issues have been addressed in the dynamic version of GTAP. It is worth to further explore this in the planning of work in SEAMLESS? SEAMLESS could largely benefit from this.

Chapter 5 does introduce CAPRI as a tool to simulate the impact of EU policies on the global economy. Has it been tested for specific consideration in the context of developing countries? LDCs are treated as one block, whereas developing countries might be very diverse. Chapter 5: what about the environmental issues and technological change? Is it going to be considered?

In Chapter 6, it becomes clear that GTAP and CAPRI are both introduced. The approach seems elegant. GTAP and CAPRI could provide different results. Do you foresee difficulties we should cope with?

Chapter 7: it is unclear what work is being proposed in SEAMLESS – either make this explicit and state how this will be specified over the next period or make clear what you propose. This chapter is an important basis to start planning the work in this task. It seems as if GTAP does not allow analysing the impact of CAP on the use of natural resources. Is this different from what is concluded in Section 4.2 regarding


Page 195 of 196

the use of GTAP-Dyn? How come? It is recommended that the type of questions that will be addressed in Task 3.8 are interpreted in the context of the broader objectives of SEAMLESS (e.g. tool for impact assessment).

Advice to linkages with other workpackages:

So far, this Task has limited links established with other workpackages. It is advised this will be strengthened in planning next steps of Task 3.8.

Further steps:

See above. No specific comments.

Additional comments:

- Has GTAP been consistently tested against its capabilities for use with developing countries? Trading features of these countries do largely differ from exporting countries, because of limited trade on the world market, or largely operating as an importing country. The current report remains unclear on that. Section 4.3, for example, does identify a need to adjust GTAP to cover other crops that are more important in developing countries.

- Conclusions are missing. It is suggested to conclude on the key features for this Task and assess whether they could be covered in the current version of GTAP/CAPRI, and what efforts would be required to improve the models. Such conclusions could be a proper basis for next steps in Task 3.8.

- Please complete the various open ends of the document: o authors and responsible partners on page 2; o the Commission requests a real executive summary in each Deliverable

rather than the few lines describing the outline of the document. o Insert some specific terms of this work in the Glossary and provide a

definition; this is quite essential to understand each other in a broad project such as this.

o Please make clear in the reference list that Britz et al. and Janssen and Van Ittersum (rather than Sander and Van Ittersum) are project deliverables – refer to the numbers, etc.

- Chapter 1: lines 3 and 4: mention that assessing competitiveness is one of the SEAMLESS aims as well!

- Section 4.1, last sentence: the implication of this sentence is unclear – can you elaborate? o What is the scale of analysis in FARM? Is it really farm level, so is there

an overlap with the work in FSSIM? o Section 4.3: is this the work proposed under SEAMLESS? Please specify. o Chapter 4: it would be good to provide some technical specifications

(=software; modelling language, database, etc.) about GTAP, as this is receiving a lot of attention in SEAMLESS.

- Not all references mentioned in the report are included in the list of references.

- See editorial comments in the document.


Page 196 of 196