THEME [KBBE.2013.1.2-01] [Agro-forestry systems for Europe]

THEME [KBBE.2013.1.2-01][Agro-forestry systems for Europe]

Grant agreement for: Collaborative project*

Annex I - "Description of Work"Project acronym: AGFORWARDProject full title: " AGFORWARD "Grant agreement no: 613520Version date: 2013-09-19

Table of Contents

Part A

A.1 Project summary ......................................................................................................................................3

A.2 List of beneficiaries ..................................................................................................................................4

A.3 Overall budget breakdown for the project ............................................................................................... 6

Workplan Tables

WT1 List of work packages ............................................................................................................................1

WT2 List of deliverables .................................................................................................................................2

WT3 Work package descriptions ................................................................................................................... 5

Work package 1......................................................................................................................................5

Work package 2......................................................................................................................................8

Work package 3....................................................................................................................................11

Work package 4....................................................................................................................................14

Work package 5....................................................................................................................................17

Work package 6....................................................................................................................................20

Work package 7....................................................................................................................................24

Work package 8....................................................................................................................................27

Work package 9....................................................................................................................................30

Work package 10..................................................................................................................................34

WT4 List of milestones .................................................................................................................................36

WT5 Tentative schedule of project reviews ................................................................................................. 40

WT6 Project effort by beneficiaries and work package ................................................................................41

WT7 Project effort by activity type per beneficiary ...................................................................................... 43

WT8 Project efforts and costs ......................................................................................................................46

A1:Project summary

613520 AGFORWARD - Part A - Page 3 of 7

Project Number 1 613520 Project Acronym 2 AGFORWARD

One form per project

General information

Project title 3 AGFORWARD

Starting date 4 01/01/2014

Duration in months 5 48

Call (part) identifier 6 FP7-KBBE-2013-7-single-stage

Activity code(s) mostrelevant to your topic 7

KBBE.2013.1.2-01:Agro-forestry systems forEurope

Free keywords 8Agroforestry, participatory research, rural development,profitability, farmers, farm diversification, provisioningregulating and cultural services, climate change, policy

Abstract 9

Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animalsystems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions. AGFORWARD (AGroFORestrythat Will Advance Rural Development) is a four-year project, developed by 23 organisations at the forefront ofagroforestry research, practice and promotion in Europe, with the goal of promoting appropriate agroforestrypractices that advance sustainable rural development. The project will i) increase our understanding ofexisting, and new extensive and intensive agroforestry systems in Europe; ii) identify, develop and demonstrateinnovations to improve the ecosystem service benefits and viability of agroforestry systems in Europe usingparticipatory research, iii) develop better adapted designs and practices for the different soil and climaticconditions of Europe, and iv) promote the wide adoption of sustainable agroforestry systems.Successful and sustainable agroforestry practices are best developed by farmers and land owners workingin partnership with researchers, extension staff, and other rural businesses. AGFORWARD will facilitate 33participative agroforestry research and development stakeholder groups to improve the resilience of i) existingagroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value such as the dehesa and montado; and ii) olive, traditionalorchard, and other high value tree systems, and the sustainability of iii) arable and iv) livestock systems with theintegration of trees. Using existing bio-economic models, AGFORWARD will evaluate and adapt the innovationsto improve the delivery of positive ecosystem services and business profitability at farm- and landscape-scalesacross Europe. By using and developing existing European fora, such as the European Agroforestry Federation,AGFORWARD will implement an informative and effective promotion programme to benefit the Europeaneconomy, environment and society.

A2:List of Beneficiaries



List of Beneficiaries

No Name Short name CountryProject entrymonth10

Project exitmonth

1 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY CRAN United Kingdom 1 48

2 EUROPEAN FOREST INSTITUTE EFI Finland 1 48

3 Association de Coordination Technique Agricole ACTA France 1 48

4 UNIVERSIDADE DE SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA USC Spain 1 48

5 TECHNOLOGIKO EKPEDEFTIKO IDRIMA STEREAS ELLADAS TEI STEREASELLADAS Greece 1 48

6 INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE INRA France 1 48

7 PROGRESSIVE FARMING TRUST LTD T/A THE ORGANIC RESEARCHCENTRE PFT LTD United Kingdom 1 48

8 BRANDENBURGISCHE TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITATCOTTBUS-SENFTENBERG BTU COTTBUS Germany 1 48

9 UNIVERSIDAD DE EXTREMADURA UEx Spain 1 48

10 Instituto Superior de Agronomia ISA Portugal 1 48

11 KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET UCPH Denmark 1 48

12 EIDGENOESSISCHES DEPARTEMENT FUER WIRTSCHAFT, BILDUNGUND FORSCHUNG EVD Switzerland 1 48

13 WERKGROEP VOOR EEN RECHTVAARDIGE ENVERANTWORDELANDBOUW VZW Wervel Belgium 1 48

14 AARHUS UNIVERSITET AU Denmark 1 48

15 AGRIFOOD AND BIOSCIENCES INSTITUTE AGBI United Kingdom 1 48

16 CONSIGLIO PER LA RICERCA E LA SPERIMENTAZIONE INAGRICOLTURA CRA Italy 1 48

17 LOUIS BOLK INSTITUUT LOUIS BOLKINSTITUUT Netherlands 1 48

18 CONSIGLIO NAZIONALE DELLE RICERCHE CNR Italy 1 48

A2:List of Beneficiaries


No Name Short name CountryProject entrymonth10

Project exitmonth

19 NYUGAT-MAGYARORSZAGI EGYETEM KOOPERACIOS KUTATASIKOZPONT NONPROFIT KFT

NymE KKKNonprofit K Hungary 1 48

20 UNIVERSITATEA BABES BOLYAI UBB Romania 1 48

21 VENETO AGRICOLTURA Veneto Agricoltura Italy 1 48

22 AGROOF AGROOF France 1 48

23 ASSEMBLEE PERMANENTE DES CHAMBRES D'AGRICULTURE APCA France 1 48

24 ASSOCIATION FRANCAISE D AGROFORESTERIE, DES RACINES ETDES CIMES AFAF France 1 48

25 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR RESEARCH IN AGROFORESTRY ICRAF Kenya 1 48

26 EUROPEAN AGROFORESTRY FEDERATIONASSOCIATION*EURAFEUROPEAN AGROFORESTRY FEDERATION EURAF France 1 48

A3:Budget Breakdown



One Form per Project

Estimated eligible costs (whole duration of the project)Participantnumber in

this project 11

Participantshort name

Fund.%12 Ind. costs13 RTD /

Innovation(A)

Demonstration(B)

Management(C)

Other (D)Total

A+B+C+D

RequestedEU

contribution

1 CRAN 75.0 T 619,305.60 0.00 344,578.40 72,988.80 1,036,872.80 882,044.00

2 EFI 75.0 S 460,558.40 0.00 0.00 13,805.00 474,363.40 359,223.00

3 ACTA 75.0 F 150,432.00 0.00 1,500.00 42,536.00 194,468.00 156,860.00

4 USC 75.0 T 341,184.00 0.00 0.00 12,800.00 353,984.00 268,688.00

5 TEI STEREASELLADAS

75.0 T 344,006.40 0.00 0.00 6,400.00 350,406.40 264,404.00

6 INRA 75.0 T 877,481.60 0.00 0.00 7,224.00 884,705.60 422,152.00

7 PFT LTD 75.0 T 365,484.80 0.00 0.00 42,400.00 407,884.80 316,513.00

8 BTU COTTBUS 75.0 T 449,299.20 0.00 0.00 24,400.00 473,699.20 361,374.00

9 UEx 75.0 T 383,936.00 0.00 0.00 13,600.00 397,536.00 301,552.00

10 ISA 75.0 T 469,945.60 0.00 4,000.00 56,211.20 530,156.80 409,852.00

11 UCPH 75.0 T 408,614.40 0.00 0.00 10,880.00 419,494.40 317,340.00

12 EVD 75.0 T 527,436.80 0.00 2,400.00 7,880.00 537,716.80 405,857.00

13 Wervel 50.0 A 6,546.00 0.00 0.00 37,802.00 44,348.00 41,075.00

14 AU 75.0 T 254,356.80 0.00 0.00 11,720.00 266,076.80 202,487.00

15 AGBI 75.0 T 145,510.40 0.00 0.00 4,680.00 150,190.40 113,812.00

16 CRA 75.0 T 116,019.20 0.00 0.00 7,200.00 123,219.20 94,214.00

17 LOUIS BOLKINSTITUUT

75.0 A 225,750.00 0.00 0.00 7,580.00 233,330.00 176,892.00

18 CNR 75.0 S 180,547.00 0.00 0.00 4,800.00 185,347.00 140,210.00

19 NymE KKKNonprofit K

75.0 T 121,190.40 0.00 0.00 3,200.00 124,390.40 94,092.00

A3:Budget Breakdown


Estimated eligible costs (whole duration of the project)Participantnumber in

this project 11

Participantshort name

Fund.%12 Ind. costs13 RTD /

Innovation(A)

Demonstration(B)

Management(C)

Other (D)Total

A+B+C+D

RequestedEU

contribution

20 UBB 75.0 T 104,768.00 0.00 0.00 2,560.00 107,328.00 81,136.00

21 Veneto Agricoltura 75.0 T 90,681.60 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 94,281.60 71,611.00

22 AGROOF 75.0 A 24,000.00 0.00 0.00 158,000.00 182,000.00 176,000.00

23 APCA 75.0 A 62,244.00 0.00 0.00 6,036.00 68,280.00 52,719.00

24 AFAF 75.0 F 54,144.00 0.00 0.00 11,568.00 65,712.00 52,176.00

25 ICRAF 75.0 T 109,412.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 109,412.80 82,000.00

26 EURAF 50.0 F 88,237.20 0.00 0.00 106,365.60 194,602.80 150,483.00

Total 6,981,092.20 0.00 352,478.40 676,236.60 8,009,807.20 5,994,766.00

Note that the budget mentioned in this table is the total budget requested by the Beneficiary and associated Third Parties.

* The following funding schemes are distinguished

Collaborative Project (if a distinction is made in the call please state which type of Collaborative project is referred to: (i) Smallof medium-scale focused research project, (ii) Large-scale integrating project, (iii) Project targeted to special groups such asSMEs and other smaller actors), Network of Excellence, Coordination Action, Support Action.

1. Project number

The project number has been assigned by the Commission as the unique identifier for your project, and it cannot be changed.The project number should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents to prevent errors duringits handling.

2. Project acronym

Use the project acronym as indicated in the submitted proposal. It cannot be changed, unless agreed during the negotiations.The same acronym should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents to prevent errors duringits handling.

3. Project title

Use the title (preferably no longer than 200 characters) as indicated in the submitted proposal. Minor corrections are possible ifagreed during the preparation of the grant agreement.

4. Starting date

Unless a specific (fixed) starting date is duly justified and agreed upon during the preparation of the Grant Agreement, theproject will start on the first day of the month following the entry info force of the Grant Agreement (NB : entry into force =signature by the Commission). Please note that if a fixed starting date is used, you will be required to provide a detailedjustification on a separate note.

5. Duration

Insert the duration of the project in full months.

6. Call (part) identifier

The Call (part) identifier is the reference number given in the call or part of the call you were addressing, as indicated in thepublication of the call in the Official Journal of the European Union. You have to use the identifier given by the Commission inthe letter inviting to prepare the grant agreement.

7. Activity code

Select the activity code from the drop-down menu.

8. Free keywords

Use the free keywords from your original proposal; changes and additions are possible.

9. Abstract

10. The month at which the participant joined the consortium, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and allother start dates being relative to this start date.

11. The number allocated by the Consortium to the participant for this project.

12. Include the funding % for RTD/Innovation – either 50% or 75%

13. Indirect cost modelA: Actual CostsS: Actual Costs Simplified MethodT: Transitional Flat rateF :Flat Rate

WorkplanTables

Project number

613520

Project title

AGFORWARD—AGFORWARD

Call (part) identifier

FP7-KBBE-2013-7-single-stage

Funding scheme

Collaborative project

WT1List of work packages

613520 AGFORWARD - Workplan table - Page 1 of 47


LIST OF WORK PACKAGES (WP)

WPNumber53

WP TitleType ofactivity 54

Leadbeneficiarynumber 55

Person-months 56

Startmonth57

Endmonth58

WP 1 Context: existing agroforestry systems inEurope RTD 2 42.00 1 27

WP 2 High Natural and Cultural Value (HNCV)Agroforestry RTD 9 109.00 1 48

WP 3 Agroforestry for High Value Tree Systems RTD 5 113.00 1 48

WP 4 Agroforestry for arable farmers RTD 8 130.50 1 48

WP 5 Agroforestry for livestock farmers RTD 14 92.00 1 48

WP 6 Field- and farm-scale evaluation ofinnovations RTD 10 183.50 1 48

WP 7 Landscape-scale evaluation of innovativeagroforestry RTD 11 124.00 1 48

WP 8 Agroforestry policy development RTD 4 59.50 1 48

WP 9 Dissemination OTHER 22 79.00 1 48

WP 10 Project management MGT 1 31.00 1 48

Total 963.50

WT2:List of Deliverables



List of Deliverables - to be submitted for review to EC

Delive-rableNumber61

Deliverable TitleWPnumber53

Lead benefi-ciary number

Estimatedindicativeperson-months

Nature 62

Dissemi-nation level63

Delivery date64

D1.1

AgroforestryfromMediterraneanPartnerCountries

1 25 8.00 R PU 12

D1.2

Current extentand trends ofagroforestry inEU27

1 2 11.00 R PU 18

D1.3

Environmentalandsocio-economicframeworkconditionsof currentagroforestry

1 2 23.00 R PU 27

D2.4HNCVagroforestry:Characteristics

2 9 36.00 R PU 24

D2.5

HNCVagroforestry:Result ofinnovations

2 9 36.00 R PU 38

D2.6

HNCVagroforestry:Guidelines tofarmers

2 9 37.00 R PU 44

D3.7

Agroforestryfor High ValueTree Systems:Characteristics

3 5 37.00 R PU 24

D3.8

Agroforestryfor High ValueTree Systems:Results ofInnovations

3 5 37.00 R PU 38

D3.9

Agroforestryfor High ValueTree Systems:Guidelines forfarmers

3 5 39.00 R PU 44

D4.10Agroforestry forarable farmers:Characteristics

4 8 43.00 R PU 24







Nature 62


Delivery date64

D4.11

Agroforestry forarable farmers:Results ofinnovations

4 8 43.00 R PU 38

D4.12Agroforestry forarable farmers:Guidelines

4 8 44.50 R PU 44

D5.13

Agroforestryfor livestockfarmers:Characteristics

5 14 30.00 R PU 24

D5.14

Agroforestryfor livestockfarmers: Resultsof innovations

5 14 31.00 R PU 38

D5.15

Agroforestryfor livestockfarmers:Guidelines

5 14 31.00 R PU 44

D6.16 Initial modelledoutputs 6 6 56.00 R PU 26

D6.17Modelledoutputs at field-and farm-scale

6 10 62.00 R PU 36

D6.18

Modelledoutputs atfarm-scale(economic)

6 1 65.00 R PU 44

D7.19

Synthesisof existingEuropeanagroforestryperformance

7 11 18.00 R PU 24

D7.20

Ecosystemservice andprofitabilityof four novelagroforestrypractices

7 12 63.00 R PU 38

D7.21

Profitability,biodiversityand ecosystemservices ofagroforestry atlandscape scale

7 11 19.00 R PU 48







Nature 62


Delivery date64

D7.22 Europeanscenario maps 7 2 24.00 O PU 48

D8.23

Extent andsuccess ofcurrent policymeasuresto promoteagroforestryacross Europe

8 4 20.50 R PU 16

D8.24

Policy to helpappropriatedevelopmentand uptake ofagroforestry

8 4 39.00 R PU 42

D9.25EU agroforestryinteractiveplatform

9 22 8.00 O PU 6

D9.26

Map ofexperimentalanddemonstrationplots

9 22 3.00 O PU 12

D9.27

Web-applicationof Yield-SAFEand Farm-SAFEmodels

9 10 12.00 O PU 18

D9.28

Establishmentof NationalAgroforestryAssociations

9 26 6.00 R PU 24

D9.29

Training tool-kitfor farmers,technicians andstudents

9 22 10.00 R PU 30

D9.30

Farmer-applicablebooklets focusedon W2-WP5 andpolicy issues

9 3 31.00 R PU 44

D9.31 Final conference 9 26 9.00 O PU 48

Total 932.00

WT3:Work package description



One form per Work Package

Work package number 53 WP1 Type of activity 54 RTD

Work package title Context: existing agroforestry systems in Europe

Start month 1

End month 27

Lead beneficiary number 55 2

Objectives

The aim of WP1 is to understand the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe.The specific objectives are:O1.1 To inventory and explain, using existing EU27 land cover and land use databases, the extent and recentchanges of agroforestry systems in EuropeO1.2 To identify and describe successful agroforestry practices in areas bordering Europe, that could be used toencourage agroforestry in Europe.O1.3 To stratify the EU27 into regions with different combinations of fruit-tree/olive, livestock, arable andrangeland agroforestry systemsO1.4 To analyse the framework conditions under which agroforestry operates and develops in Europe

Description of work and role of partners

T1.1 Inventory of agroforestry systems based on existing EU land use classifications and surveys. ICRAF hasundertaken similar work outside of Europe. This will include an assessment of the location and quantification ofagroforestry areas of high nature value (EFI, ICRAF, UNEX, USC).T1.2 Compilation of information about different examples of agroforestry innovations in areas bordering Europe,such as the wider Mediterranean, that could inspire future solutions for Europe in the context of climate warming.(ICRAF, UNEX) (D1.1)T1.3 Stratification of agroforestry systems in the EU27 (EFI). In order to inform the participative networks, thistask will stratify the EU27 into regions with variable presence of systems focused systems of high nature andcultural value (WP2), systems involving high value trees such as olives and fruit trees (WP3, arable (WP4), andlivestock systems (WP5).T1.4 Analysis of environmental and socio-economic factors framing agroforestry development in Europe (EFI,ACTA, CRA, CRAN, EURAF, FDEA, ISA, TEI, USC, UBER). To promote the broader adoption of agroforestrysystems (WP8 and WP9), it is crucial to understand under which framework conditions agroforestry systemsare operating in different regions. This task will make use of the national policy stakeholder network describedin WP9 (O9.1). The task will use surveys with questionnaires addressed to national experts in agroforestry tocollect information about the socio-economic conditions and environmental challenges and benefits of currentagroforestry systems across Europe. This information will also be needed in WP8 for the upscaling of local andlandscape level results to the European level.T1.5 To co-ordinate and synthesiise the work within WP1 (EFI)

Person-Months per Participant

Participant number 10 Participant short name 11 Person-months per participant

1 CRAN 1.00

2 EFI 15.00

4 USC 4.00





5 TEI STEREAS ELLADAS 2.00

9 UEx 3.00

10 ISA 1.00

11 UCPH 3.00

12 EVD 1.00

16 CRA 1.00

24 AFAF 2.00

25 ICRAF 6.00

26 EURAF 3.00

Total 42.00

List of deliverables


Deliverable Title

Leadbenefi-ciarynumber


Nature 62

Dissemi-nationlevel 63

Delivery date 64

D1.1 Agroforestry from MediterraneanPartner Countries 25 8.00 R PU 12

D1.2 Current extent and trends ofagroforestry in EU27 2 11.00 R PU 18

D1.3Environmental and socio-economicframework conditions of currentagroforestry

2 23.00 R PU 27

Total 42.00

Description of deliverables

D1.1) Agroforestry from Mediterranean Partner Countries: Report on possible technology transfer fromMediterranean Partner countries to European countries [month 12]

D1.2) Current extent and trends of agroforestry in EU27: Report on current extent and trends of agroforestry usein the EU27, including maps with agroforestry likelihood, stratified into systems aligned with WP2-5 [month 18]

D1.3) Environmental and socio-economic framework conditions of current agroforestry: Report describing theenvironmental and socio-economic framework conditions of current agroforestry in different regions withinEurope [month 27]



Schedule of relevant Milestones

Milestonenumber 59 Milestone name


Deliverydate fromAnnex I 60

Comments

MS1 Preliminary stratification and quantification ofagroforestry use 2 12






Work package title High Natural and Cultural Value (HNCV) Agroforestry

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP2 is to identify, develop, field-test and promote (with WP9) innovations to improve the benefits andviability of High Natural and Cultural Value (HNCV) agroforestry in Europe.The detailed objectives are:O2.1 To identify examples of existing best practice, the key challenges, and possible innovations to addressthose challenges, within a Participatory Research and Development Network (PRDN) based on 10 stakeholdergroups associated with agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value (HNCV) agroforestry (e.g. grazedforests, semi-open pastures, wood pastures, bocage) in the main agro-climatic regions of Europe.O2.2 To describe and explain the key inputs, outputs, and ecosystem service flows, for selected high nature andcultural value agroforestry systems (in relation to WP6 and WP7).O2.3 To agree, within the PDRN, key innovations or improvements in measurement which are expected toimprove the resilience and reinforce the ecosystem services of HNCV agroforestry systems in Europe.O2.4 To agree and implement, with the PDRN, an experimental protocol to develop and test the proposedinnovations at existing experimental facilities and through on-farm experiments, and to then analyse andinterpret the results, with close involvement of the PDRN. This will include methods to address issues liketree regeneration, soil quality improvement, control of nutrient leaching, forage supplementation, and herdmonitoring.O2.5 To provide and promote guidelines on how farmers and policy makers can improve the resilience ofextensive agroforestry systems in Europe (working with WP8 and WP9).


T2.1 To establish the HNCV agroforestry PRD network and hold stakeholder workshops in selected countries(see Table 1.2)(Month 4-8) (all WP2 partners led by UNEX). Each workshop should include 8-15 keystakeholders including producers, manufacturers, trading groups, consumers, and policy makers. Eachstakeholder group will identify i) the prominent issues and challenges, ii) examples of best practice, iii)stakeholder-led innovations, and iv) organisations willing to participate in the innovation research. The workshopwill be informed by a compilation and synthesis of already published information from existing experimentalplots, especially those managed by the network. Key issues are expected to include poor tree regeneration,excessive shrub encroachment, loss of soil quality, strategies to adapt to severe drought, low profitability andsocial acceptance of HNCV agroforestry, fire risk, and product marketing (See Table 1.2). Workshops willbe held at identified experimental sites (Table 1.2), and held in the national language with the informationsummarised in the national language and English by the research partners (M2.1).T2.2 Detailed systems description and recording of the inputs and outputs of the productive processes (Month4-12; all WP2 partners led by UNEX) and monitoring of key ecosystem services (Month 4 to 24; all WP2partners; led by UNEX). At each experimental site, habitat diversity will be mapped and above- and below-ground carbon storage will be quantified. At selected sites, soil carbon will be disaggregated into stable andlabile components. Supporting site information will also be derived from existing data, expert knowledge, andfarmer interviews. The data will feed into the modelling exercises within WP6 (Month 26: UNEX, INRA, ISA,BTU, CRAN; led by ISA and INRA). This will result in a report describing the components, structure, ecosystemservices, and economic value of the selected systems (D2.1).T2.3 At the first annual project meeting (Month 12), key stakeholders and all WP2 participants, led by UNEX,will confirm the innovations to be tested (M2.2). The meeting will be available as a Webinar to those unableto attend physically. The meeting will identify the key innovations to be tested at the experimental sites (T2.4)



and through participatory on-farm research (T2.5). Possible innovations include i) management options toprevent soil degradation in Mediterranean agroforestry systems through ground cover management or the useof soil amendments; ii) reduction of nutrient leaching; iii) alternative methods for tree regeneration comparedto conventional methods such as reforestation and fencing for 10-20 years, iv) the diversification and seasonalenlargement of in-farm pasture resources using shrub forage bank or biodiverse pastures rich in legumes,v) new technology (e.g. GPS) to guide herds, and vi) new methods to brand agroforestry products with theaesthetic and wildlife values of HNCV agroforestry landscapes. A report (D7.2) will summarise the innovations tobe tested, and the protocol (M2.3) to be followedT2.4 Each stakeholder group will test experimentally (with replicates and controls) between one and four of thekey technical innovations identified in M2.2, and the results will be analysed, interpreted and costed (Month12-38). The analysis (M2.4; D2.2) will include provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services (All WP2partners; led by UNEX).T2.5 The innovations identified in T2.3 will also be tested on-farm using a participatory research approachacross the varying agroclimatic regions (Table 1.2) (Month 12-36). Each on-farm project will include an agreedprotocol (M2.3). A workshop will be held on the participatory research farms to discuss progress and assess thepracticability of the innovations tested. The results from the participatory projects will be reported and interpretedin Milestone 2.5 and contribute to D2.3 (All WP2 participants; led by UNEX).T2.6 In coordination with WP9 resulted guidelines will be disseminated to a wide audience with special focuson identified stakeholder groups. Field visits will be organised to demonstrations sites. Specific information formarket-driven organisations will be also elaborated.T2.7 To co-ordinate and synthesise the work within WP2 (UNEX)



1 CRAN 8.00

2 EFI 6.00


6 INRA 11.00

8 BTU COTTBUS 8.00

9 UEx 28.00

10 ISA 10.00

18 CNR 9.00

19 NymE KKK Nonprofit K 9.00

20 UBB 9.00

26 EURAF 2.00

Total 109.00



Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D2.4 HNCV agroforestry: Characteristics 9 36.00 R PU 24

D2.5 HNCV agroforestry: Result ofinnovations 9 36.00 R PU 38





Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D2.6 HNCV agroforestry: Guidelines tofarmers 9 37.00 R PU 44

Total 109.00


D2.4) HNCV agroforestry: Characteristics: Report describing the components, structure, ecosystem services,and economic value of selected high cultural and natural value agroforestry systems across Europe. [month 24]

D2.5) HNCV agroforestry: Result of innovations: Report describing the results of the innovations tested onexperimental sites and in participatory networks in terms of profitability and supply of ecosystem services.[month 38]

D2.6) HNCV agroforestry: Guidelines to farmers: Guidelines (to producers including farmers and relatedindustries) for improving the resilience of agroforestry systems of high natural and cultural value. [month 44]





Comments

MS2 National networks established and firstworkshops carried out 9 8

MS3 Report confirming the innovations to beevaluated by each stakeholder group 9 12

MS4 Experimental protocol for test of innovations 9 13

MS5 Initial report on the studied innovations. 9 32This will include technicaland socio-economicassessment

MS6 Report with guidelines for improving theresilience of HNCV agroforestry 9 42

MS7 Dissemination of results andrecommendations to stakeholder groups 9 48 WIth WP9






Work package title Agroforestry for High Value Tree Systems

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP3 is to identify, develop, field-test and promote (with WP9) innovations to improve the benefits andviability of agroforestry for high value tree systems.The specific objectives are:O3.1 To identify examples of existing best practice, the key challenges, and possible innovations to addressthose challenges, within stakeholder working groups within a Participatory Research and Development Network(PRDN) related to the use of agroforestry in high value tree systems.O3.2 To describe and explain the key inputs, outputs, and ecosystem service flows for case study systems inselected countries, associated with the use of agroforestry in high value tree systems (in association with WP6).O3.3 To agree, with the PDRN, key innovations or improvements in quantification to promote the uptake ofagroforestry in high value tree systems.O3.4 To agree and implement, with the PDRN, an experimental protocol to develop and test the proposedinnovation at existing experimental facilities and through on-farm experiments, and to then analyse and interpretthe results, with close involvement of the PDRN.O3.5 To provide and promote guidelines for farmers on how to establish economically viable agroforestrypractices in high value tree systems (with WP9).


T3.1 To establish a Participatory Research and Development network comprising stakeholder working groupsin selected countries (See Table 1.3), and to hold first meetings with those groups (Month 4-8) (all WP3participants, led by TEI). Each meeting is to identify i) the prominent issues and challenges, ii) examples of bestpractice, iii) stakeholder-led innovations, and iv) producers willing to participate in the innovation research. Themeetings will be held in the national language but the information from these workshops will be summarised inEnglish by the research partners (M3.1).T3.2 Detailed systems description and monitoring of the inputs, flows, and outputs of the key ecosystem servicesof at least one case study system within each stakeholder working group (Month 4 to 24). The description willcover agroecology (climate, soil) the components (tree species, crop system, livestock, management system),structure (planting arrangement, age, weed management policy), and key ecosystem services (provisioning,regulating and cultural), and associated economic value. The information will be derived from expert knowledgeand field measurement. The data will feed into the modelling exercises within WP6 and WP7. (Partners: All WP3participants; led by TEI). This will result in a report describing the components, structure, ecosystem services,and economic value of the selected systems (D3.1).T3.3 The innovations to be tested at the experimental sites (T3.4) and through participatory on-farm research(T3.5) within each stakeholder workgroup will be reported on and confirmed at the first annual meeting in month12. The meeting will be available as a webinar for those unable to attend physically. In some groups, in SouthernEurope, the focus will be on improving the sustainability of olive systems through agroforestry practices. In othergroups, the focus will be on improving the sustainability of fruit-orchard systems by intercropping or the useof grazing livestock. A report (M3.2) will summarise the workshop outcomes and the innovations to be tested(Partners: All WP3 participants; led by TEI).T3.4 In line with the development of an experimental protocol (M3.3), the innovative practices and technologiesidentified in M3.2 will be tested experimentally with replicates and controls, and the results will be analysed andinterpreted (Month 12-38). The key experimental include olive systems in southern Europe and orchard systemsin central and northern Europe (Partners: Lead TEI; all WP2 participants).



T3.5 The innovations identified in 3.3 will also, where appropriate, be tested on-farm using a participatoryresearch approach. This will involve farmers and/or land owners in on-farm experiments and/or monitoringof novel practices. The results will be compared to standard industry data or on-farm controls depending onthe nature of the innovation. Each on-farm project will have an agreed research protocol (M3.3). A workshopwill be held on each participatory research farms to discuss progress and assess the practicability of theinnovations tested. The results from the participatory projects will be reported and interpreted in Milestones 3.4and contribute to D3.2 (Partners: All WP3 participants; led by TEI).T3.6 To co-ordinate and synthesise the work within WP3 (TEI)



1 CRAN 12.00

3 ACTA 1.00

4 USC 12.00


7 PFT LTD 6.00

9 UEx 8.00

10 ISA 3.00

12 EVD 6.00

15 AGBI 5.50

16 CRA 28.00

23 APCA 3.00

24 AFAF 3.50

26 EURAF 2.00

Total 113.00



Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D3.7 Agroforestry for High Value TreeSystems: Characteristics 5 37.00 R PU 24

D3.8 Agroforestry for High Value TreeSystems: Results of Innovations 5 37.00 R PU 38

D3.9 Agroforestry for High Value TreeSystems: Guidelines for farmers 5 39.00 R PU 44

Total 113.00


D3.7) Agroforestry for High Value Tree Systems: Characteristics: A report describing the components, structure,ecosystem services, and economic value of agroforestry with selected high value tree systems across Europe[month 24]



D3.8) Agroforestry for High Value Tree Systems: Results of Innovations: Report describing the results of theinnovations tested on experimental sites and in participatory networks in terms of profitability and supply ofecosystem services [month 38]

D3.9) Agroforestry for High Value Tree Systems: Guidelines for farmers: Booklet of guidelines for farmers andlandowners for improving the resilience of high value tree systems [month 44]





Comments

MS8 Agroforestry for High Value Trees: Nationalnetworks and first workshops carried out 5 8

MS9 Agroforestry for High Value Trees: Reportconfirming innovations to be evaluated 5 12

MS10Agroforestry for High Value Trees:Experimental Protocol for innovations to betested

5 13

MS11 Agroforestry for High Value Trees: Initialreport on innovations 5 32

This will include technicaland socio-economicassessments

MS12 Agroforestry for High Value Trees: Reportwith guidelines 5 42

MS13Agroforestry with High ValueTrees: Dissemination of results andrecommendations

5 48 With WP9






Work package title Agroforestry for arable farmers

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP4 is to identify, develop, fiekld-test and promote (with WP9) innovations to improve the benefitsand viability of agroforestry for arable systems. The detailed objectives are:O4.1 To identify examples of existing best practice, the key challenges, and possible innovations to addressthose challenges, within stakeholder working groups within a Participatory Research and Development Network(PRDN) related to the use of agroforestry in arable systems.O4.2 To describe and explain the key inputs, outputs, and ecosystem service flows, for a case study system inselected countries, associated with the use of agroforestry in arable systems (in association with WP6).O4.3 To agree, with the PDRN, the key potential innovations or improvements in quantification to promote theuptake of agroforestry on arable farms.O4.4 To agree and implement, with the PDRN, an experimental protocol to develop and test the proposedinnovations at existing experimental facilities and through on-farm experiments, and to then analyse andinterpret the results.O4.5 To provide and promote guidelines for farmers on how to establish economically viable agroforestrypractices on arable farms (with WP9).


T4.1 To establish a Participatory Research and Development network comprising stakeholder workgroupswith an interest in agroforestry systems for arable systems in selected countries (See Table 1.4), and to holdfirst meetings with those groups (Months 4-8) (All WP participants; led by BTU). Each stakeholder group is toidentify i) the prominent issues and challenges, ii) examples of best practice, iii) stakeholder-led innovations,and iv) producers willing to participate in the innovation research. The workshops will make appropriate use ofthe experimental sites identified in Table 1.4. The meetings will be held in the national language with a reportproduced in both the national language and English (M4.1).T4.2 Detailed systems description and monitoring of the inputs, flows, and outputs of the key ecosystem servicesof at least one case study system within each stakeholder working group (Month 4 to 24). The information willbe derived from expert knowledge and field measurement. The data will feed into the modelling exercises withinWork-package 6. (All WP4 participants; led by BTU). This will result in a report describing the components,structure, ecosystem services, and economic value of the selected systems (D4.1).T4.3 The innovations to be tested at experimental sites (T4.4) and on-farm (T4.5) within each stakeholderworkgroup will be confirmed at the first annual meeting in month 12, which will be broadcast as a webinar tothose unable to attend physically. Possible innovations include the role of trees in biomass production. Otherswill focus on the modification of agroforestry designs (e.g. width of alleys, tree line orientation), tree management(e.g. pollarded trees for reducing light competition with crops; root trenching to favour deep rooting of trees),and crop management (e.g. selection of shade-tolerant crop varieties) to improve resource use efficiency. Somegroups may focus on improving biodiversity. The stakeholder workgroup focused on INRA will focus on thebehaviour of intercrops in the context of climate change (using a rain-exclusion system). A report (M4.2) willsummarise the workshop outcomes and the innovations to be tested (All WP4 participants; led by BTU).T4.4 The key technical innovations identified in 4.3 will be tested experimentally with replicates and controls, andthe results will be analysed and interpreted (Month 12-38). The key experimental facilities include the famoussites of Restinclières and Vézénobres (France) where the first estimates of the LERs of silvoarable systemswere measured. Examples of innovations to be tested by WP4 are given in T4.3 above. An experimentalprotocol of the innovations to be tested will be produced (M5.3) by month 13 (All WP4 participants; led by BTU).



T4.5 The innovations identified in 4.3 will also be also tested, where appropriate, using a participatory researchapproach within each stakeholder working group in collaboration with the stakeholder workgroup facilitator. Thiswill involve farmers or land owners in on-farm experiments and/or monitoring of novel practices. The resultsof the innovative practices will be compared to standard industry data or on-farm controls depending on thenature of the innovation. Each on-farm project will have a devised protocol setting out appropriate methods,using experience at ORC (M4.4). An annual workshop will be held on the participatory research farms to discussprogress and assess the practicability of the innovations tested. The results from the participatory projects will bereported and interpreted in Deliverable 4.2 and contribute to D4.3 (All WP4 participants; led by BTU).T4.6 To promote guidelines for improved agroforestry systems appropriate for arable systems to a wideraudience in print by Month 44, and in the form of workshops and presentations by Month 48 (Deliverable 4.3) (AllWP4 participants; led by BTU).T4.7. To co-ordinate and synthesise the work within WP4 (BTU)



1 CRAN 1.00

3 ACTA 1.00

4 USC 9.00


6 INRA 25.00

7 PFT LTD 12.00

8 BTU COTTBUS 32.00

9 UEx 9.00

10 ISA 3.00

12 EVD 4.00

18 CNR 6.00


21 Veneto Agricoltura 2.00

23 APCA 6.00

24 AFAF 3.50

26 EURAF 2.00

Total 130.50



Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D4.10 Agroforestry for arable farmers:Characteristics 8 43.00 R PU 24

D4.11 Agroforestry for arable farmers:Results of innovations 8 43.00 R PU 38





Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D4.12 Agroforestry for arable farmers:Guidelines 8 44.50 R PU 44

Total 130.50


D4.10) Agroforestry for arable farmers: Characteristics: Report describing the components, structure, ecosystemservices, and economic value of selected agroforestry practices appropriate for arable systems across Europe(Month 24). [month 24]

D4.11) Agroforestry for arable farmers: Results of innovations: Report describing the results of the innovationstested on experimental sites and in participatory networks in terms of profitability and supply of ecosystemservices (Month 38) [month 38]

D4.12) Agroforestry for arable farmers: Guidelines: Report for arable farmers with guidelines for improvedagroforestry systems for arable systems (Month 44) [month 44]





Comments

MS14 Agroforestry for arable farmers: Networksestablished and first workshops carried out 8 8

MS15 Agroforestry for arable farmers: reportconfirming innovations to be evaluated 8 12

MS16 Agroforestry for arable farmers: Experimentalprotocol 8 13

MS17 Agroforestry for arable farmers: Initial reporton innovations 8 32

This will include technicaland socio-economicassessments

MS18 Agroforestry for arable farmers: Draftguidelines 8 42

MS19Agroforestry for arable farmers:Dissemination of results andrecommendations

8 48 With WP9






Work package title Agroforestry for livestock farmers

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP5 is to identify, develop, field-test and promote (with WP9) innovations to improve the benefits andvaiability of agroforestry for livestock systems.The detailed objectives are:O5.1 To identify examples of existing best practice, the key challenges, and possible innovations to addressthose challenges, within stakeholder working groups within a Participatory Research and Development Network(PRDN) related to the use of agroforestry in poultry, ruminant, and pig production systems.O5.2 To describe and explain the key inputs, outputs, and ecosystem service flows, for a case study system inselected countries, associated with the use of agroforestry in poultry, ruminant and pig production systems (inassociation with WP6).O5.3 To agree, with the PDRN, key innovations or improvements in quantification to promote the uptake ofagroforestry by livestock farmers.O5.4 To agree and implement, with the PDRN, an experimental protocol to develop and test the proposedinnovation at existing experimental facilities and through on-farm experiments, and to then analyse and interpretthe results, with close involvement of the PDRN.O5.5 To provide and promote guidelines for farmers on how to establish economically viable agroforestrypractices within poultry, ruminant and pig production systems (with WP9).


The WP5 Participatory Research and Development Network will focus on three sectors: agroforestry withpoultry, agroforestry with ruminants, and agroforestry with pigs. For each sector, the same tasks will becompleted.T5.1 To establish a PRD network, comprising stakeholder working groups in selected countries (See Table 1.5),and to hold the first meeting within those groups related to the use of agroforestry for i) poultry (UK, Netherlands,Denmark), ii) ruminants (UK, France, Netherlands), and iii) pigs (Denmark Italy, and Spain), (Month 4-8) (AllWP5 participants; led by AU). The meeting is to i) identify the most prominent issues and challenges, ii) identifybest practice examples, iii) identify stakeholder-led innovations, and iv) identification of producers willing toparticipate in the innovation research. The workshops will be held at experimental sites identified in Table 1.5.The meetings will be held in the national language but the information from these workshops will be summarisedin English by the research partners (M5.1).T5.2 Detailed systems description and monitoring of the inputs, flows, and outputs of the key ecosystemservices of at least one case study system in each country (Month 4 to 38). The information will be derived fromexpert knowledge and field measurement. The data will feed into the modelling exercises within WP6 (Partnersinvolved: ACTA, USC, INRA, ORC, AU, INRA, AU, AFBI, LBI, and VEN, with support of WP6 leader ISA). Thiswill result in a report describing the components, structure, ecosystem services, and economic value of theselected systems (D5.1).T5.3 The innovations to be tested by each stakeholder workgroup either at experimental sites (T5.4) or on-farm(T5.5) will be confirmed at the annual meeting in Month 12, which will be available as a webinar for those unableto attend physically. Possible innovations an improved quantification of the role of trees to reduce greenhouseemissions on the site, the role of trees in animal nutrition, improve animal welfare, or improve product qualityand value. A report (M5.2) will summarise the workshop outcomes and the innovations to be tested (Partnersinvolved: All WP5 partners led by AU).



T5.4 Selected technical innovations identified in 5.3 will be tested experimentally with replicates and controls,and the results will be analysed and interpreted (Month 12-38). Example experimental facilities include FAIFarms for woodland poultry in the UK (poultry). An INRA facility will focus on innovative agroforestry practicesfor ruminant systems, and the VEN and AU facilities will focus on woodland pigs. An experimental protocol of theinnovations to be tested will be produced (M5.3) by month 13 (Partners involved: All WP5 partners led by AU).T5.5 The innovations identified in 5.3 will also be also tested using a participatory research approach withinthe national networks in each country, in collaboration with the national research partner. There will be oneparticipatory research project per selected country for the poultry system (UK, Netherlands, Denmark), ruminant(France, Netherlands, UK) and pig system (Denmark, Italy, Spain) respectively. This will involve farmers orfarm managers in on-farm experiments and/or monitoring of novel practices. The results will be compared tostandard industry data or on-farm controls depending on the nature of the innovation. Each on-farm project willhave a devised protocol setting on appropriate methods, using experience at AU and ORC (M5.4). An annualworkshop will be held on the participatory research farms to discuss progress and assess the practicability of theinnovations tested. The results from the participatory projects will be reported and interpreted in Deliverable 5.2and contribute to D5.3 (All WP5 partners led by AU)T5.6 To promote guidelines for improved agroforestry systems for livestock for a wide audience in the livestocksector either as a report (D5.3) or in the form of presentations and workshops (M5.6) (All partners led by AU).T5.7 To co-ordinate and synthesise the work within WP5 (AU)



3 ACTA 5.00

4 USC 7.00

6 INRA 14.00

7 PFT LTD 14.00

10 ISA 3.00

14 AU 17.00

15 AGBI 8.00

17 LOUIS BOLK INSTITUUT 13.00


26 EURAF 2.00

Total 92.00



Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D5.13 Agroforestry for livestock farmers:Characteristics 14 30.00 R PU 24

D5.14 Agroforestry for livestock farmers:Results of innovations 14 31.00 R PU 38

D5.15 Agroforestry for livestock farmers:Guidelines 14 31.00 R PU 44

Total 92.00




D5.13) Agroforestry for livestock farmers: Characteristics: Report describing the components, structure, outputsin terms of feed and energy as well as other ecosystem services, and economic value of selected agroforestrysystems for livestock across Europe. [month 24]

D5.14) Agroforestry for livestock farmers: Results of innovations: Report describing the results of the innovationstested on experimental sites and in participatory networks in terms of profitability and supply of ecosystemservices [month 38]

D5.15) Agroforestry for livestock farmers: Guidelines: Guidelines (to the industry) for improved agroforestrysystems for livestock production reported [month 44]





Comments

MS20 Agroforestry for livestock farmers: Networksestablished and first workshops carried out 14 8

MS21 Agroforestry for livestock farmers:Innovations identified 14 12

MS22 Agroforestry for livestock farmers:Experimental protocol 14 13

MS23 Agroforestry for livestock farmers: Initialresults 14 32

MS24 Agroforestry for livestock farmers: Draftguidelines 14 42

MS25Agroforestry for livestock farmers:Dissemination of results andrecommendations

14 48 With WP9






Work package title Field- and farm-scale evaluation of innovations

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP6 is to adapt and evaluate agroforestry designs and practices for locations where agroforestryis currently not-widely practised or is declining, and to quantify the opportunities for uptake at a field- and afarm-scale. The specific objectives are:O6.1 To develop a consistent participatory and scientific evaluation of the agroforestry innovations identified bythe four Participative Research and Development Networks (WP2-WP5) using an ecosystems approach.O6.2 To use a parameter-intense biophysical model (Hi-sAFe), to evaluate how specific micro-scale designcharacteristics, related to the capture and use of solar radiation, water and nutrients, affect carbon capture andyields under current and future climates.O6.3 To evaluate the “provisioning” services (i.e. yields) of trees, crops, and livestock, in agroforestry systemsusing a robust parameter-sparse biophysical model (Yield-SAFE).O6.4 To evaluate the “supporting” (e.g. soil nutrients) and “regulating” services (e.g. carbon capture, waterquality, GHG emissions) of agroforestry systems using Life Cycle Assessment.O6.5 To evaluate the cultural services (e.g. aesthetic pleasure, recreation potential) of agroforestry systemsusing a range of social, and environmental economic research methods to identify, quantify, and rank socialperceptions and preferences for agroforestry products and systemsO6.6 To evaluate what extra premium stakeholders are willing to pay for agroforestry products relative toproducts from conventional systemsO6.7 To compare the long-term financial impact of agroforestry relative to the status quo arable, livestock, orforestry monoculture systems using the Farm-SAFE model.O6.8 To compare the long-term ecosystem services impact of agroforestry relative to status quo arable, livestockor forestry monoculture systems using an integrated modelling frameworkO6.9 To identify and quantify the risks and uncertainty associated with agroforestry systems in a systematicmannerO6.10 Using the evaluations above to identify when and how agroforestry can be used to offer improvedresource efficiency and ecosystem benefits for stakeholders


T6.1 To develop a pan-European database of current and future climate data for biophysical model use, drawingon existing data sources (Partners: ISA, CRAN) (M6.1)T6.2 Identification of agroforestry systems and practices (WP2 to WP5) to model (All partners in WP2-WP5, andespecially UNEX, TEI, BTU, and AU) (M6.2).T6.3 To develop a database for consistent collection of agroforestry systems description (from WP2 toWP5). This will comprise site (e.g. soil type), management (e.g. tree/crop/livestock species, tree spacing),technical (e.g. physical inputs and outputs), and economic data (e.g. labour input; financial value ofoutputs). Data from national data sources (e.g. ABC, 2012) and European data sources (e.g. FADN;http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/) will be collected. A key data requirement is on the premium thatstakeholders are willing to pay for agroforestry products. This will be collected via national statistics andquestionnaire interviews with key informants and the public. The database will be used to parameterisethe models providing insights of contrasting agroforestry systems and innovations for a range of Europeanagroclimatic regions (All partners in WP2-5, especially UNEX, TEI, BTU, AU) (M6.3).T6.4 Data on the value of linked industry and non-market ecosystem services impacts of agroforestry will becollected. Data on linked industry impacts will be collected from national statistics and key informants. Data



on non-market impacts will be collected from published studies (e.g. Willis and Garrod, 1992) environmentalaccounts for agriculture (e.g. Campos et al 2007, Campos & Caparrós 2009 Spencer et al, 2008) benefitstransfer databases (e.g. EVRI; http://www.evri.ca/), and major international projects (e.g. TEEB; EC, 2008a).Quantitative and qualitative studies will be undertaken to develop new understanding of how social preferencesvary between agroforestry and monoculture systems. These studies will develop narratives and ranked scoresfor those benefits (e.g. spiritual wellbeing) that are particularly difficult to value in economic terms (Partners inWP2-WP5, and especially UNEX, TEI, BTU, and AU) (M6.3)T6.5 To improve existing Yield-SAFE and Hi-SAFE agroforestry models to allow the analysis of the proposedinnovations. This is likely to include an improved light interception algorithm and tree-root model within theYield-SAFE model. The results from existing life cycle assessments (e.g. Williams et al. 2010) will be usedto relate crop and grass yield data to potential livestock outputs, and key environmental externalities (e.g.anticipated greenhouse gas emissions) (Partners: ISA, INRA, CRAN) (M6.4)T6.6 To collect biophysical data for model validation and/or calibration for new tree and crop components in theYield-SAFE and Hi-SAFE models (Partners: ISA, CRAN, INRA, UNEX, TEI, BTU, and AU) (M6.3).T6.7 To collect management and economic data to be used in model projections for O7.2 to O7.4 (All partners inWP2-WP5, and UCPH, FDEA, ISA, and CRAN) (M6.3).T6.8 To model a range of stakeholder-defined management options for agroforestry practices defined inWP2-WP5, using Yield-SAFE and Hi-sAFe to identify “best practice”. Detailed analysis of the synergies andtrade-offs occurring between different components and ecosystem services provision (e.g. tree density vstimber and crop yield and carbon accumulation; water yield and quality (nitrate) vs understory management)will be undertaken using Hi-sAFe. Long-term integrated financial and ecosystem services assessment will beundertaken by using the collected data within Yield-SAFE and Farm-SAFE. The models will be used to calculatethe land equivalent ratios for the identified innovations, and a range of new evaluation criteria will be used forcomparing the profitability and ecosystem services of the agroforestry systems with the status quo monoculturesystems. (Partners: ISA, CRAN and INRA) (D6.2). This will include the assessment of the role of transferpayments (D6.3).T6.9 To co-ordinate and synthesise the work within WP6 (ISA).



1 CRAN 44.00

2 EFI 3.00

3 ACTA 3.00

4 USC 2.00


6 INRA 41.00

7 PFT LTD 3.00

8 BTU COTTBUS 6.00

9 UEx 6.00

10 ISA 53.50

11 UCPH 2.00

12 EVD 1.00

14 AU 4.00

15 AGBI 2.00

16 CRA 1.00






18 CNR 1.00

22 AGROOF 5.00

25 ICRAF 2.00

Total 183.50



Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D6.16 Initial modelled outputs 6 56.00 R PU 26

D6.17 Modelled outputs at field- andfarm-scale 10 62.00 R PU 36

D6.18 Modelled outputs at farm-scale(economic) 1 65.00 R PU 44

Total 183.00


D6.16) Initial modelled outputs: Initial modelled outputs at field scale to support best management practices forresource efficiency of agroforestry [month 26]

D6.17) Modelled outputs at field- and farm-scale: Modelled outputs at field and farm scale to support thebiophysical, social, and environmental assessments of the innovations selected from WP2-WP5 (Month 36)[month 36]

D6.18) Modelled outputs at farm-scale (economic): Modelled outputs at farm-scale to support the assessment ofthe need, or otherwise, of transfer payments [month 44]





Comments

MS26 Climate database 10 6

Project database ofpan-European simulatedclimate data for defaultmodel use

MS27 Confirmation of systems and innovations tomodel 10 14

MS28 Database of consistent agroforestry systemdescription 10 18

MS29 Improvement of existing Yield-SAFE modelsfor proposed innovations 1 20







Comments

MS30 Improvement of Hi-SAFE models forproposed innovations 6 20






Work package title Landscape-scale evaluation of innovative agroforestry

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP7 is to adapt and evaluate agroforestry designs and practices for locations where agroforestry iscurrently not widely-practised or is declining, and quantify the opportunities for uptake at a landscape scale. Thespecific objectives are:O7.1 To systematise existing knowledge on the outcomes of European agroforestry systems in terms ofbiodiversity, ecosystem services and farm profitability, using systematic review and meta-analysis.O7.2 To select 12 sample landscapes in Mediterranean, Continental, Atlantic and Northern Europe forlandscape-scale analysis of agroforestry systems (WPs 2-5).O7.3 To assess biodiversity and ecosystem services provided by agroforestry in various landscape-level spatialconfigurations, applying a set of indicators and involving farmers and local communities.O7.4 To perform financial and economic cost-benefit analyses at farm and regional scales by conductingmodeling and stakeholder-based scenario studies.O7.5 To identify synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity, ecosystem services and profitability at landscapescale, focusing on patterns of ecosystem services bundles across landscapes and extending the concept of landequivalent ratios.O7.6 To upscale the findings to assess the potential of agroforestry at national and European scales and toprovide guidance for agroforestry policy development.


T7.1 Synthesis of existing knowledge on the outcomes of European agroforestry systems in terms ofbiodiversity, ecosystem services and farm profitability (Lead: UCPH). Building on WP1, a systematicqualitative and quantitative synthesis will be completed using scholarly publications, grey literature and expertknowledge. Meta-analyses will be used to derive general principles and responses of processes that havebeen previously-researched (e.g. C sequestration). Assessing agroforestry systems of different components,configurations, and different biogeographic zones, reviews will provide new evidence of the land-use dynamicsand driving forces of change in agroforestry systems; the social, economic and environmental benefits ofagroforestry systems at multiple spatial scales, and the land management and institutional arrangementspromoting or inhibiting the spread of agroforestry systems. Traditional and modern management practices fromEurope and beyond will be compiled as repository for adaptive solutions to climate, other environmental andsocioeconomic change (D7.1).T7.2: Selection of four agroforestry systems and 12 sample landscapes (Lead: UNEX). Working with thenetworks developed in WP2-WP5, key agroforestry practices will be selected for each major Europeangeographical region (Mediterranean, Continental, Atlantic, Northern Europe). In each region, sample landscapesof 4x4 km each will be selected for use in T7.3 and 7.4. Spatial data will be collected (soil suitability, digitalelevation model, coarse habitat map), which will feed into study-area specific databases and analyses. Whereverpossible, data that are publicly available or available at low cost (e.g., remote sensing data, agency databases)will be used to allow future replication in other settings. Data collection protocols will allow for data to be pooledto the level of European regions for formal analysis. Scenarios will be developed together with WP6 and WP8,comprising different degrees of agroforestry uptake by farmers, different agroforestry systems, and differentpolicy options.T7.3 Assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services provided by agroforestry systems under differentscenarios (Lead: FDEA). AGFORWARD will assess biodiversity and provisioning, regulating and culturalecosystem services at landscape scale in the sites selected in T7.2. Based on data from WP2-5 and



complementary measurements, biodiversity will be assessed focusing on vegetation, farmland birds and habitatheterogeneity. All three components are highly sensitive to management and strong determinants of HighNature Value. Ecosystem services will be assessed in two different intensities: (a) The provision of a broad setof ecosystem services (e.g., grass forage, tree products, soil conservation, nitrate retention) will be mappedand quantified in breadth using available tools such as the InVESt (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Servicesand Trade-offs”) model. Data gathered in T7.2 and WP2-6 will be used as input data to the models. (b) Twoecosystem services types of particular importance in an agroforestry context (e.g. C sequestration, landscapediversity) will be studied in depth through field measurements and development of new assessment methods.GIS-based scenario maps will be generated for use in T7.5 (D7.2).T7.4 Performance of cost-benefit analyses at farm and landscape scales (Lead: ISA, CRAN). This will beachieved using existing bio-economic spreadsheet-based models (e.g. FARM-SAFE). Assessment will be madefrom the financial (e.g farmer’s) perspective, and an economic (e.g. societal) perspective. Where possible,negative externalities (e.g. methane emissions, nitrous oxide emissions) will be included. The sensitivity of thenet present value of the different systems to specific inputs will be determined.T7.5 Identification of synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity, ecosystem services and profitability (Lead:UCPH). To compare the full range of benefits of agroforestry systems, trade-offs and synergies betweenbiodiversity, agricultural and forestry production, and the provision of less tangible ecosystem serviceswill be assessed and mapped. Consumer preferences and their willingness to pay for high-quality foodfrom agroforestry systems, landscape aesthetics and other ecosystem services will be evaluated throughconjoint analysis (e.g. Krystallis and Ness 2005) and related to possibilities of introducing innovative labelsfor agroforestry products (WP8). To understand how agroforestry can support broad “bundles” of ecosystemservices, links to agroforestry systems/practices will be explored. The technical-organisational conditions infarms that determine the capacity of agroforestry systems to provide ecosystem services while avoiding thedevelopment of disservices will be evaluated (D7.3).T7.6 Upscaling of the findings to the level of European regions (Lead: FDEA, EFI). The findings of the landscapeevaluations (T7.3, T7.5) on economic and environmental performance will be upscaled to the European regionswhich they are representative for, taking into account the variability of the findings and building on the workcompleted in WP1. To this end, a spatially explicit scale similarity analysis will be conducted based on land use,climate, soil characteristics, farm types, etc. The design thus presents an exciting opportunity to generate apan-European understanding of agroforestry systems (D7.4).T7.7 To co-ordinate and synthesise the work within WP7 (UCPH).



1 CRAN 6.00

2 EFI 9.00

3 ACTA 5.00

4 USC 3.00

6 INRA 11.00

9 UEx 10.00

10 ISA 6.00

11 UCPH 35.00

12 EVD 28.00

20 UBB 10.00

25 ICRAF 1.00

Total 124.00





Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D7.19 Synthesis of existing Europeanagroforestry performance 11 18.00 R PU 24

D7.20 Ecosystem service and profitability offour novel agroforestry practices 12 63.00 R PU 38

D7.21Profitability, biodiversity andecosystem services of agroforestry atlandscape scale

11 19.00 R PU 48

D7.22 European scenario maps 2 24.00 O PU 48

Total 124.00


D7.19) Synthesis of existing European agroforestry performance: Synthesis report on European agroforestryperformance in terms of biodiversity, ecosystem services and profitability [month 24]

D7.20) Ecosystem service and profitability of four novel agroforestry practices: Report on ecosystem servicesand profitability of four novel agroforestry practices in major European bio-geographical zones as compared tothe status quo [month 38]

D7.21) Profitability, biodiversity and ecosystem services of agroforestry at landscape scale: Report onprofitability and provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services through agroforestry systems at landscapescale, including synergies and trade-offs [month 48]

D7.22) European scenario maps: European scenario maps illustrating the potential consequences of an uptakeof major agroforestry systems by farmers on ecosystems and farm profitability [month 48]





Comments

MS31 Standardised protocol for biodiversity,ecosystem services and farm profitability 11 12

MS32 Selection of key agroforestry systems and 12sample landscapes 9 12

MS33 Spatial characterization of samplelandscapes 20 24

MS34 Definition of scenario framework 12 24 To be used in tasks 3 to6 in WP7

MS35 Cost-benefit analysis of selected agroforestrystems at farm and regional scales 1 30






Work package title Agroforestry policy development

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP8 is to promote the wider adoption of appropriate agroforestry systems in Europe through policydevelopment. The specific objectives are:O8.1 To describe the current extent of agroforestry policy measures across the European Union.O8.2 To determine the success of the above policy measures in promoting agroforestry across Europe and othertemperate areas.O8.3 To provide guidance on how future policy developments could help optimise the contribution of agroforestryto support sustainable rural development.


T8.1 To work with key stakeholders (including policy makers, farmer and land owner associations) to describeand obtain feedback on recent and current policy measures (including the CAP) to promote agroforestryestablishment and management, in relation to different nations, regions, and socio-economic conditions asinitially described by WP1. This will be done in collaboration with the workgroups developed by the WP2-WP5leaders. The assessment will be based on the WP2-WP5 structure taking into account that many policies arerelated to areas of high natural and cultural value, orchard, arable, and livestock systems. EURAF and EFI willprovide information about countries outside of the consortium. This will also be achieved through a literaturereview. Participants in the project will provide descriptions and analyses of the main agri-environment measuresand the impacts on agroforestry implementation from a HNCV, High tree value, silvoarable and livestock pointof view. Surveys will be developed to obtain feedback from stakeholders (USC, WP1-WP6, EURAF) to developpolicy in a participatory way.T8.2 To recommend policy scenarios to be used in the scaling up exercise in WP7 and receive results to betterimplement policy recommendations.T8.3 An analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies in different agro-climatic regions of Europe,also taking into account socio-economic aspects (land ownership, demography, farm size, using EUROSTAT),to produce a map per policy measure (M8.1). In large countries with regions with administrative structures(Autonomous regions) that deliver agri-environment measures in a regional way like Spain, this will be performedat a regional level. The rural development proposals for 2007-2013 included options for agroforestry but thereis substantial variation in implementation. The initial analysis will be carried out by USC in collaboration withthe expertise of EFI, EURAF, and ORC (experts on organic systems). Once the preliminary report is delivered,it will be analysed by the WP leaders (WP1-7, WP9) and an open option of the document to already identifiedkey stakeholders (associations, policy makers) for comment. At the end a final document will be delivered(D8.2). The delivery of the recommendations will be undertaken in co-ordination with WP9 (Disseminationwork-package).T8.4 To co-ordinate and synthesise the work within WP8 (USC)



2 EFI 2.00

4 USC 16.00






7 PFT LTD 6.00

8 BTU COTTBUS 2.00

9 UEx 1.00

10 ISA 2.00

11 UCPH 2.00

13 Wervel 1.00

15 AGBI 0.50

16 CRA 2.00


18 CNR 2.00


20 UBB 1.00

24 AFAF 5.00

25 ICRAF 1.00

26 EURAF 12.00

Total 59.50



Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D8.23Extent and success of current policymeasures to promote agroforestryacross Europe

4 20.50 R PU 16

D8.24Policy to help appropriatedevelopment and uptake ofagroforestry

4 39.00 R PU 42

Total 59.50


D8.23) Extent and success of current policy measures to promote agroforestry across Europe: Report on theextent and success of current policy measures to promote agroforestry across Europe (Month 16) [month 16]

D8.24) Policy to help appropriate development and uptake of agroforestry: Report on how policy can help theappropriate development and uptake of agroforestry across Europe based on key farmers requirements [month42]







Comments

MS36 Maps and indicators of agroforestry policiesacross the EU 4 14

MS37 Policy scenarios to be used in WP7 4 22





Work package number 53 WP9 Type of activity 54 OTHER

Work package title Dissemination

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP9 is to promote the wider adoption of appropriate agroforestry systems in Europe throughdissemination. The specific objectives focus on promotion, education, and exchange.O9.1 To promote agroforestry systems in order to increase the adoption of such systems. The sub-objectivesare: i) to inform key European stakeholders, including farmers and land owners, about successful agroforestrypractices, ii) to inform the key policy makers, rural development administrators, and extension services of eachEU27 country and province about the opportunities of recent agroforestry regulations, and iii) to catalyse thecreation and development of national associations of agroforestry development.O9.2 To raise awareness in the EU of agroforestry by key stakeholders responsible for national agriculturaltraining and extension, so that it is incorporated into training programmes.O9.3 To encourage more effective use of existing knowledge, and knowledge developed during the project,through knowledge exchange both during and after the project. Exchange will be encouraged between partners,and between the project and those not directly involved, by creating original communication tools that build onthe participatory approach. A specific focus will be communication with European research institutes.


The dissemination activities will be chosen to be appropriate to end-users. Eight key groups have beenidentified: i) farmers; ii) businesses, iii) extension services, iv) researchers, v) policy makers, and vi) agriculturaland forestry colleges, together with vii) national stakeholder communities and viii) the general public.T9.1 WP9 will be responsible for the implementation of a dissemination and stakeholder engagement protocolfor the project (so that our dissemination and stakeholder engagement activities are co-ordinated). WP9will work with the four participatory research and development networks (WP2-WP5), the field- farm-, andlandscape-scale evaluation WP (WP6 and 7), and the policy WP8 to develop a stakeholder list associated withthe project (Lead: AGROOF with EURAF and WER). WP9 will liaise with representative of the key user groupmentioned above to establish the most appropriate means of communication.T9.2 WP9 will disseminate much of the communication around an interactive internet-platform (AGROOF led,with WP leaders and EURAF) detailing how agroforestry can provide social, environmental and economicbenefits. The platform, accessible to different level of professional experiences (see the groups mentionedabove) will allow access to results, presentations and events. Different formats will be used including videos,pdf documents, booklets, links, and audio documents. Special attention will be given to the public interface andspecial web pages for market driven products.T9.3 The WP will work in relation to the groups mentioned above to develop literature and guidance for specificuser groups. For example i-ii) for farmers, land owners and businesses, we will create decision-making tools(based on the financial models from WP6), images of the demonstration plots, booklets, and an assessment ofthe value of agroforestry products and services. iii) For extension services, the focus is on adapted documentsand tools to help provide best advice to farmers and land owners. iv) For researchers, interactive tools willbe developed for better communication and exchange (map presenting the experimental plots and studies,the different teams and their work). v) policy makers should benefit from the assessment of the regulationand proposals (WP8) in terms of a regulation map, and vii) for national stakeholder communities, EURAF willcatalyse the development of agroforestry in Europe by assisting the creation of national associations along thelines of AFAF (in France) and AWAF (in Belgium).T9.4 Regular communication will be provided to key stakeholders during the project through the use of electronicnewsletters, newspaper articles, and briefings from each WP.



T9.5 WP9 will assess the needs for education tools with the main actors of the European education partners(user group vi). We will produce tools for different levels of training systems, including training for farmers andtechnicians (slideshows, videos, models adapted for web use, documents).T9.6 The objective is to coordinate regional conferences and workshops in order to favour communicationand exchange in collaboration within the key stakeholders across each country in Europe. EURAF will liaisewith ICRAF to co-organize an international event in Europe and will participate to the next global agroforestryconference in February 2014 in India. At the end of the project, we will organize a final project conference.T9.7 To co-ordinate and synthesise the work within WP9 (AGROOF)



1 CRAN 7.00

2 EFI 1.00

3 ACTA 3.50

4 USC 2.00


6 INRA 1.00

7 PFT LTD 5.00

8 BTU COTTBUS 2.50

9 UEx 2.50

10 ISA 8.00

11 UCPH 1.00

12 EVD 0.50

13 Wervel 4.00

14 AU 1.00

15 AGBI 0.50

16 CRA 2.00


18 CNR 0.50


20 UBB 0.50


22 AGROOF 18.00

23 APCA 1.00

24 AFAF 3.00

26 EURAF 12.00

Total 79.00

yolande

Texte surligné





Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

D9.25 EU agroforestry interactive platform 22 8.00 O PU 6

D9.26 Map of experimental anddemonstration plots 22 3.00 O PU 12

D9.27 Web-application of Yield-SAFE andFarm-SAFE models 10 12.00 O PU 18

D9.28 Establishment of NationalAgroforestry Associations 26 6.00 R PU 24

D9.29 Training tool-kit for farmers,technicians and students 22 10.00 R PU 30

D9.30 Farmer-applicable booklets focusedon W2-WP5 and policy issues 3 31.00 R PU 44

D9.31 Final conference 26 9.00 O PU 48

Total 79.00


D9.25) EU agroforestry interactive platform: EU agroforestry interactive platform highlighting project forend-users. [month 6]

D9.26) Map of experimental and demonstration plots: An experimental and demonstration plots network map.[month 12]

D9.27) Web-application of Yield-SAFE and Farm-SAFE models: A web application for the models of Yield-SAFEand Farm-SAFE (with WP6). These applications will be available for free on internet and used for projectelaboration and training courses. Special training courses for end-users will be organised [month 18]

D9.28) Establishment of National Agroforestry Associations: Expansion of the number of National AgroforestryAssociations across Europe to 12. A tool box (with slide shows, regulation booklets, regulation and juridical helpdocuments) will be created to help the organisations engaged in this deliverable [month 24]

D9.29) Training tool-kit for farmers, technicians and students: A training tool-kit for farmers, technicians andstudents (Month 30). A conference for students in collaboration with the best experts in agroforestry will beorganised in France to serve as models for contents (videos, slideshows, texts). [month 30]

D9.30) Farmer-applicable booklets focused on W2-WP5 and policy issues: Production of a set offarmer-applicable booklets explaining how to improve the resilience of agroforestry of high cultural and naturalvalue (with WP1-2-7), agroforestry for high value tree systems (with WP3), agroforestry for arable farmers (withWP4), for livestock owners (with WP5), and the state of the regulation in agroforestry (WP8). [month 44]

D9.31) Final conference: Final project conference [month 48]





Comments

MS38 Report on the dissemination protocol for theproject 22 3

yolande

Texte surligné







Comments

MS39 Quarterley web-site updates of keyagroforestry innovations (quarterly) 1 3 To take place quarterly

MS40 Quarterly newsletter for professionalstakeholders 26 6 to month 42





Work package number 53 WP10 Type of activity 54 MGT

Work package title Project management

Start month 1

End month 48


Objectives

The aim of WP10 is to co-ordinate and manage the progress of the project, in order to ensure that the objectivesof the project will be met. This includes the coordination of activities among the work-packages, facilitation of theinternal communication, organisation of meetings, guidance of the decision-making processes, reporting to theEuropean Commission, taking care of the administrative issues of the project, and re-adjustment of the work ifnecessary. The AGFORWARD management aims to comply with the strict timetable as indicated in the GANTTdiagram.


T10.1 To establish and maintain an effective and efficient project management and co-ordination structure forthe project. This includes acting as a link to the European Commission and the preparation of the ConsortiumAgreement with approval and subscription of all partners. This also includes quality assurance within thenetwork: review of timely execution of tasks, quality control and validation of the project deliverables andrescheduling of tasks when necessary. CRAN will use an electronic project management tool for progress andresource monitoring and report preparation on a restricted area of the website (CRAN). CRAN will also seek toensure consistency in approaches across work-packages.T10.2 To prepare, chair and report on Executive Board and General Assembly meetings (CRAN)T10.3 To co-ordinate the preparation and delivery of progress reports and the final report to the EuropeanCommission (CRAN).T10.4 To administer financial matters such as the co-ordination and preparation of financial reports, managingthe financial contribution from the EC, and ensuring a proper distribution to the partners (CRAN).



1 CRAN 31.00

Total 31.00



Deliverable Title



Nature 62


Delivery date 64

Total 0.00








Comments

MS41 Compilation of internal 6-monthly interimreports except where a progress report is due 1 7 Six-monthly

MS42Minutes from the launch meeting andsix-monthly Executive Board meetings andGeneral Assemblies

1 2 Six-monthly

WT4:List of Milestones



List and Schedule of Milestones

Milestonenumber 59 Milestone name WP number 53 Lead benefi-

ciary numberDelivery datefrom Annex I 60 Comments

MS1

Preliminarystratification andquantification ofagroforestry use

WP1 2 12

MS2

National networksestablished and firstworkshops carriedout

WP2 9 8

MS3

Report confirmingthe innovations to beevaluated by eachstakeholder group

WP2 9 12

MS4Experimentalprotocol for test ofinnovations

WP2 9 13

MS5 Initial report on thestudied innovations. WP2 9 32

This will include technicaland socio-economicassessment

MS6

Report withguidelines forimproving theresilience of HNCVagroforestry

WP2 9 42

MS7

Disseminationof results andrecommendations tostakeholder groups

WP2 9 48 WIth WP9

MS8

Agroforestry forHigh Value Trees:National networksand first workshopscarried out

WP3 5 8

MS9

Agroforestry forHigh Value Trees:Report confirminginnovations to beevaluated

WP3 5 12

MS10

Agroforestry forHigh Value Trees:ExperimentalProtocol forinnovations to betested

WP3 5 13





MS11Agroforestry for HighValue Trees: Initialreport on innovations

WP3 5 32This will include technicaland socio-economicassessments

MS12Agroforestry for HighValue Trees: Reportwith guidelines

WP3 5 42

MS13

Agroforestry withHigh Value Trees:Disseminationof results andrecommendations

WP3 5 48 With WP9

MS14

Agroforestry forarable farmers:Networksestablished and firstworkshops carriedout

WP4 8 8

MS15

Agroforestry forarable farmers:report confirminginnovations to beevaluated

WP4 8 12

MS16

Agroforestry forarable farmers:Experimentalprotocol

WP4 8 13

MS17Agroforestry forarable farmers: Initialreport on innovations

WP4 8 32This will include technicaland socio-economicassessments

MS18Agroforestry forarable farmers: Draftguidelines

WP4 8 42

MS19

Agroforestry forarable farmers:Disseminationof results andrecommendations

WP4 8 48 With WP9

MS20

Agroforestryfor livestockfarmers: Networksestablished and firstworkshops carriedout

WP5 14 8

MS21Agroforestry forlivestock farmers:Innovations identified

WP5 14 12

MS22 Agroforestry forlivestock farmers: WP5 14 13





Experimentalprotocol

MS23Agroforestry forlivestock farmers:Initial results

WP5 14 32

MS24Agroforestry forlivestock farmers:Draft guidelines

WP5 14 42

MS25

Agroforestry forlivestock farmers:Disseminationof results andrecommendations

WP5 14 48 With WP9

MS26 Climate database WP6 10 6

Project database ofpan-European simulatedclimate data for defaultmodel use

MS27Confirmationof systems andinnovations to model

WP6 10 14

MS28

Database ofconsistentagroforestry systemdescription

WP6 10 18

MS29

Improvement ofexisting Yield-SAFEmodels for proposedinnovations

WP6 1 20

MS30

Improvement ofHi-SAFE modelsfor proposedinnovations

WP6 6 20

MS31

Standardisedprotocol forbiodiversity,ecosystem servicesand farm profitability

WP7 11 12

MS32

Selection of keyagroforestry systemsand 12 samplelandscapes

WP7 9 12

MS33Spatialcharacterization ofsample landscapes

WP7 20 24

MS34 Definition of scenarioframework WP7 12 24 To be used in tasks 3 to 6

in WP7

MS35 Cost-benefitanalysis of selected WP7 1 30





agroforestry stemsat farm and regionalscales

MS36

Maps and indicatorsof agroforestrypolicies across theEU

WP8 4 14

MS37 Policy scenarios tobe used in WP7 WP8 4 22

MS38

Report on thedisseminationprotocol for theproject

WP9 22 3

MS39

Quarterley web-siteupdates of keyagroforestryinnovations(quarterly)

WP9 1 3 To take place quarterly

MS40Quarterly newsletterfor professionalstakeholders

WP9 26 6 to month 42

MS41

Compilation ofinternal 6-monthlyinterim reportsexcept where aprogress report isdue

WP10 1 7 Six-monthly

MS42

Minutes from thelaunch meetingand six-monthlyExecutive Boardmeetings andGeneral Assemblies

WP10 1 2 Six-monthly

WT5:Tentative schedule of Project Reviews



Tentative schedule of Project Reviews

Reviewnumber 65

Tentativetiming

Planned venueof review Comments, if any

WT6:Project Effort by Beneficiary and Work Package



Indicative efforts (man-months) per Beneficiary per Work Package

Beneficiary numberand short-name WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4 WP 5 WP 6 WP 7 WP 8 WP 9 WP 10 Total per Beneficiary

1 - CRAN 1.00 8.00 12.00 1.00 0.00 44.00 6.00 0.00 7.00 31.00 110.00

2 - EFI 15.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 9.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 36.00

3 - ACTA 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 18.50

4 - USC 4.00 0.00 12.00 9.00 7.00 2.00 3.00 16.00 2.00 0.00 55.00

5 - TEI STEREASELLADAS 2.00 9.00 23.00 6.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 46.00

6 - INRA 0.00 11.00 0.00 25.00 14.00 41.00 11.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 103.00

7 - PFT LTD 0.00 0.00 6.00 12.00 14.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 5.00 0.00 46.00

8 - BTU COTTBUS 0.00 8.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 2.50 0.00 50.50

9 - UEx 3.00 28.00 8.00 9.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 1.00 2.50 0.00 67.50

10 - ISA 1.00 10.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 53.50 6.00 2.00 8.00 0.00 89.50

11 - UCPH 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 35.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 43.00

12 - EVD 1.00 0.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 28.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 40.50

13 - Wervel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4.00 0.00 5.00

14 - AU 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 22.00

15 - AGBI 0.00 0.00 5.50 0.00 8.00 2.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 16.50

16 - CRA 1.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 34.00

17 - LOUIS BOLKINSTITUUT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 15.50

18 - CNR 0.00 9.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.50 0.00 18.50

19 - NymE KKKNonprofit K 0.00 9.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 19.50

20 - UBB 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 1.00 0.50 0.00 20.50

WT6:Project Effort by Beneficiary and Work Package


Beneficiary numberand short-name WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4 WP 5 WP 6 WP 7 WP 8 WP 9 WP 10 Total per Beneficiary

21 - VenetoAgricoltura 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 11.50

22 - AGROOF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 23.00

23 - APCA 0.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 10.00

24 - AFAF 2.00 0.00 3.50 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 3.00 0.00 17.00

25 - ICRAF 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.00

26 - EURAF 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 35.00

Total 42.00 109.00 113.00 130.50 92.00 183.50 124.00 59.50 79.00 31.00 963.50

WT7:Project Effort by Activity type per Beneficiary



Indicative efforts per Activity Type per Beneficiary

Activity type Part. 1CRAN

Part. 2EFI

Part. 3ACTA

Part. 4USC

Part. 5TEI STE

Part. 6INRA

Part. 7PFTLTD

Part. 8BTUCOT

Part. 9UEx

Part. 10ISA

Part. 11UCPH

Part. 12EVD

Part. 13Wervel

Part. 14AU

1. RTD/Innovation activities

WP 1 1.00 15.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

WP 2 8.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 11.00 0.00 8.00 28.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

WP 3 12.00 0.00 1.00 12.00 23.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 8.00 3.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00

WP 4 1.00 0.00 1.00 9.00 6.00 25.00 12.00 32.00 9.00 3.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00

WP 5 0.00 0.00 5.00 7.00 0.00 14.00 14.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.00

WP 6 44.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 41.00 3.00 6.00 6.00 53.50 2.00 1.00 0.00 4.00

WP 7 6.00 9.00 5.00 3.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 6.00 35.00 28.00 0.00 0.00

WP 8 0.00 2.00 0.00 16.00 2.00 0.00 6.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

Total Research 72.00 35.00 15.00 53.00 45.00 102.00 41.00 48.00 65.00 81.50 42.00 40.00 1.00 21.00

2. Demonstration activities

Total Demo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Consortium Management activities

WP 10 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Management 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Other activities

WP 9 7.00 1.00 3.50 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 8.00 1.00 0.50 4.00 1.00

Total other 7.00 1.00 3.50 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 2.50 2.50 8.00 1.00 0.50 4.00 1.00



Total 110.00 36.00 18.50 55.00 46.00 103.00 46.00 50.50 67.50 89.50 43.00 40.50 5.00 22.00



Activity type Part. 15AGBI

Part. 16CRA

Part. 17LOUIS B

Part. 18CNR

Part. 19NymE

KK

Part. 20UBB

Part. 21Veneto

Part. 22AGROOF

Part. 23APCA

Part. 24AFAF

Part. 25ICRAF

Part. 26EURAF Total

1. RTD/Innovation activities

WP 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 42.00

WP 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 109.00

WP 3 5.50 28.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.50 0.00 2.00 113.00

WP 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 9.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 6.00 3.50 0.00 2.00 130.50

WP 5 8.00 0.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 92.00

WP 6 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 183.50

WP 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 124.00

WP 8 0.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 1.00 12.00 59.50

Total Research 16.00 32.00 15.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 11.00 5.00 9.00 14.00 10.00 23.00 853.50

2. Demonstration activities

Total Demo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Consortium Management activities

WP 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00

Total Management 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00

4. Other activities

WP 9 0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 18.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 12.00 79.00

Total other 0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 18.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 12.00 79.00

Total 16.50 34.00 15.50 18.50 19.50 20.50 11.50 23.00 10.00 17.00 10.00 35.00 963.50

WT8:Project Effort and costs



Project efforts and costs

Estimated eligible costs (whole duration of the project)

Beneficiarynumber

Beneficiaryshort name Effort (PM) Personnel

costs (€)Subcontracting

(€)Other Direct

costs (€)

Indirect costsOR lump sum,

flat-rate orscale-of-unit (€)

Total costsRequested EUcontribution (€)

1 CRAN 110.00 564,908.00 13,500.00 74,700.00 383,764.80 1,036,872.80 882,044.00

2 EFI 36.00 237,994.00 0.00 13,899.00 222,470.40 474,363.40 359,223.00

3 ACTA 18.50 107,605.00 21,700.00 22,900.00 42,263.00 194,468.00 156,860.00

4 USC 55.00 192,500.00 0.00 28,740.00 132,744.00 353,984.00 268,688.00

5 TEI STEREA 46.00 161,000.00 0.00 58,004.00 131,402.40 350,406.40 264,404.00

6 INRA 103.00 465,099.00 0.00 87,842.00 331,764.60 884,705.60 422,152.00

7 PFT LTD 46.00 234,600.00 0.00 20,328.00 152,956.80 407,884.80 316,513.00

8 BTU COTTBU 50.50 270,750.00 0.00 25,312.00 177,637.20 473,699.20 361,374.00

9 UEx 67.50 202,500.00 0.00 45,960.00 149,076.00 397,536.00 301,552.00

10 ISA 89.50 283,981.00 19,000.00 35,492.00 191,683.80 530,156.80 409,852.00

11 UCPH 43.00 255,200.00 0.00 6,984.00 157,310.40 419,494.40 317,340.00

12 EVD 40.50 317,925.00 0.00 18,148.00 201,643.80 537,716.80 405,857.00

13 Wervel 5.00 24,795.00 0.00 8,802.00 10,751.00 44,348.00 41,075.00

14 AU 22.00 150,150.00 0.00 16,148.00 99,778.80 266,076.80 202,487.00

15 AGBI 16.50 80,025.00 0.00 13,844.00 56,321.40 150,190.40 113,812.00

16 CRA 34.00 68,000.00 0.00 9,012.00 46,207.20 123,219.20 94,214.00

17 LOUIS BOLK 15.50 111,414.00 0.00 13,844.00 108,072.00 233,330.00 176,892.00

18 CNR 18.50 92,500.00 0.00 23,342.00 69,505.00 185,347.00 140,210.00

19 NymE KKK N 19.50 58,500.00 0.00 19,244.00 46,646.40 124,390.40 94,092.00

20 UBB 20.50 45,100.00 0.00 21,980.00 40,248.00 107,328.00 81,136.00

21 Veneto Agr 11.50 40,250.00 0.00 18,676.00 35,355.60 94,281.60 71,611.00

WT8:Project Effort and costs


Estimated eligible costs (whole duration of the project)

Beneficiarynumber

Beneficiaryshort name Effort (PM) Personnel

costs (€)Subcontracting

(€)Other Direct

costs (€)

Indirect costsOR lump sum,

flat-rate orscale-of-unit (€)

Total costsRequested EUcontribution (€)

22 AGROOF 23.00 80,500.00 20,000.00 54,500.00 27,000.00 182,000.00 176,000.00

23 APCA 10.00 44,300.00 0.00 12,600.00 11,380.00 68,280.00 52,719.00

24 AFAF 17.00 47,260.00 0.00 7,500.00 10,952.00 65,712.00 52,176.00

25 ICRAF 10.00 60,883.00 0.00 7,500.00 41,029.80 109,412.80 82,000.00

26 EURAF 35.00 131,408.00 0.00 30,761.00 32,433.80 194,602.80 150,483.00

Total 963.50 4,329,147.00 74,200.00 696,062.00 2,910,398.20 8,009,807.20 5,994,766.00

1. Project number

The project number has been assigned by the Commission as the unique identifier for your project. It cannot be changed.The project number should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents (part A and part B) toprevent errors during its handling.

2. Project acronym

Use the project acronym as given in the submitted proposal. It cannot be changed unless agreed so during the negotiations.The same acronym should appear on each page of the grant agreement preparation documents (part A and part B) toprevent errors during its handling.

53. Work Package number

Work package number: WP1, WP2, WP3, ..., WPn

54. Type of activity

For all FP7 projects each work package must relate to one (and only one) of the following possible types of activity (only ifapplicable for the chosen funding scheme – must correspond to the GPF Form Ax.v):

• RTD/INNO = Research and technological development including scientific coordination - applicable for Collaborative Projectsand Networks of Excellence

• DEM = Demonstration - applicable for collaborative projects and Research for the Benefit of Specific Groups

• MGT = Management of the consortium - applicable for all funding schemes

• OTHER = Other specific activities, applicable for all funding schemes

• COORD = Coordination activities – applicable only for CAs

• SUPP = Support activities – applicable only for SAs

55. Lead beneficiary number

Number of the beneficiary leading the work in this work package.

56. Person-months per work package

The total number of person-months allocated to each work package.

57. Start month

Relative start date for the work in the specific work packages, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all other startdates being relative to this start date.

58. End month

Relative end date, month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all end dates being relative to this start date.

59. Milestone number

Milestone number:MS1, MS2, …, MSn

60. Delivery date for Milestone

Month in which the milestone will be achieved. Month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all delivery dates beingrelative to this start date.

61. Deliverable number

Deliverable numbers in order of delivery dates: D1 – Dn

62. Nature

Please indicate the nature of the deliverable using one of the following codes

R = Report, P = Prototype, D = Demonstrator, O = Other

63. Dissemination level

Please indicate the dissemination level using one of the following codes:

• PU = Public

• PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

• RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

• CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

• Restreint UE = Classified with the classification level "Restreint UE" according to Commission Decision 2001/844 andamendments

• Confidentiel UE = Classified with the mention of the classification level "Confidentiel UE" according to Commission Decision2001/844 and amendments

• Secret UE = Classified with the mention of the classification level "Secret UE" according to Commission Decision 2001/844and amendments

64. Delivery date for Deliverable

Month in which the deliverables will be available. Month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all delivery dates beingrelative to this start date

65. Review number

Review number: RV1, RV2, ..., RVn

66. Tentative timing of reviews

Month after which the review will take place. Month 1 marking the start date of the project, and all delivery dates being relativeto this start date.

67. Person-months per Deliverable

The total number of person-month allocated to each deliverable.

1

AGFORWARD : 613520 19 Sept 2013

Part B of Annex 1 (Description of Work)

Proposal full title: AGroFORestry that Will Advance Rural Development

Proposal acronym: AGFORWARD

Type of funding scheme: Collaborative Project

Work Programme topic addressed: KBBE.2013.1.2-01: Agro-forestry systems for Europe

Area 2.1.2 Increased sustainability of all production systems (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture); plant health and crop production.

Activity 2.1: Sustainable production and management of biological resources from land, forest and aquatic environments

Name of the co-ordinating person: Dr Paul Burgess

Contents

Draft 2 Part B of Annex 1 (Description of Work) ......................................................................................... 1

Acronyms and terms ............................................................................................................................... 2

B1. Scientific and technical quality .............................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Concept and objectives ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art ............................................................................................... 5

1.3 Scientific and Technical Methodology and Associated Work Plan (1 page) ................................... 21

B2.Implementation .................................................................................................................................... 29

2.1 Management structure and procedures ......................................................................................... 29

2.2 Individual participants ..................................................................................................................... 35

2.3 Consortium as a whole .................................................................................................................... 67

2.4 Resources to be committed ............................................................................................................ 76

B3. Impact .................................................................................................................................................. 78

3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme ........................................................................... 78

3.2 Dissemination and exploitation of project results .......................................................................... 83

3.3 Management of the dissemination process and intellectual property rights ................................ 87

4. Ethical issues .......................................................................................................................................... 88

5 Consideration of Gender Issues .............................................................................................................. 92

2


Acronyms and terms

Acronyms associated with participant organisations are provided in Section B2.

AGFORWARD Agroforestry that will advance Rural Development FP7 proposal

AGROCOP Combining Agroforestry and Short Rotation Coppice; a Wood-Wisdom-Net project

ASP Agrosilvopastoral systems

BIOBIO Indicators of Biodiversity in European Farm Systems FP7 project

C Carbon

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CLIMSAVE Climate Change Integrative Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe (CLIMSAVE)

CO2 Carbon dioxide

COST European Co-operation in Science and Technology

EC European Commission

EU European Union

EU15 The European Union comprising 15 member states

EU27 The European Union comprising 27 member states

EURAF European Agroforestry Federation

FP7 EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research

GHG Greenhouse gas

GIS Geographical Information Systems

GPS Global Positioning System

GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security

HNV High Nature Value

HNCV High Nature and Cultural Value

ICRAF International Centre for Research on Agroforestry

InVESt Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs model

LER Land Equivalent Ratio

LUCAS Land Use/Cover Area Frame statistical Survey

MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MOTIVE Models for Adaptive Forest Management FP7 project

N Nitrogen

P Phosphorus

PRA Participatory Research Approach

PRD Participatory Research and Development

QUESSA Quantification of Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Agriculture FP7 project

RTD Research and Technological Development

SAFE Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe FP5 research project

UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation

WP(s) Workpackage(s)

Specific agroforestry terms: Silvoarable systems: an agroforestry system integrating trees and arable crops Silvopastoral system: an agroforestry system integrating trees and livestock Agrosilvopastoral system: an agroforestry system integrating trees, livestock and arable crops

3


B1. Scientific and technical quality

1.1 Concept and objectives

Overall objective The overall goal of the project is to promote agroforestry practices in Europe that will advance sustainable rural development, i.e. improved competitiveness, and social and environmental enhancement. The specific objectives of the project are: 1) to understand the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe (WP1),

2) to identify, develop and field-test innovations to improve the benefits and viability of agroforestry systems in Europe (WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5),

3) to evaluate innovative agroforestry designs and practices for locations where agroforestry is currently not-practised or is declining, and quantify the opportunities for uptake at a field and farm-scale (WP6) and at a landscape-scale ( WP7), and

4) to promote the wider adoption of appropriate agroforestry systems in Europe through policy development and dissemination (WP8, WP9).

Agroforestry can help the EU achieve targets Agroforestry is the practice of deliberately integrating woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal production systems to benefit from the resulting ecological and economic interactions (modified from AFTA, 2012; ICRAF, 2012). Widespread and appropriate application of agroforestry principles and practices are a key avenue to help the EU achieve the target of resource efficient, sustainable, low emission food and fibre production outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy (EC 2011). Moreover agroforestry can also help to address the following EU targets:

1) Improved competitiveness for European agriculture and forestry, whilst improving the environment, and improving quality of rural life and diversity (EC 2005),

2) Reduced pressure for deforestation and the removal of ecological areas, by increasing agricultural productivity per hectare, and by reducing wildfire risk (EC 1999),

3) Prevention of further loss to biodiversity and ecosystem services as outlined in the new EU biodiversity strategy for 2020 (EC 2011),

4) Reduction of EU greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95% by 2050 (EC 2011), 5) Greater resilience to unavoidable climate change and instability, 6) Greater resilience to higher fuel prices by providing additional biomass resources (EC 2011), 7) Greater water use efficiency and maintenance of water quality, 8) More coherent landscape protection, management and planning, as outlined with the European

Landscape Convention guidelines (Council of Europe 2000).

Agroforestry and resource efficiency Agroforestry systems can deliver, on the same land area, multiple provisioning ecosystem services such as food for humans, feed for animals, timber, biofuels, and specialist products such as resins and cork. A central scientific hypothesis is that the integration of trees within agricultural systems results in the acquisition of resources, such as solar radiation, water and nutrients, that the agricultural system would otherwise not acquire (Cannell et al. 1996). The FP5 Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE) research project (2001-2005) (Dupraz et al. 2005) used field experiments and modelling to show that agroforestry could increase land resource efficiency by up to 40%, relative to “standard” monoculture arable and woodland systems (Fig 1.1). This increase in yield can be expressed as a land equivalent ratio, i.e. the ratio of the land area of monoculture crop and woodland systems required to achieve the same outputs as the agroforestry system.

4


Fig 1.1 Previous EU-funded research has highlighted resource efficiency gains of agroforestry of up to 40% (Graves et al. 2007)

Maintaining or increasing production whilst improving other ecosystem services The recently popularised “Ecosystem Services Framework” highlights that human society benefits not only from the products provided by ecological systems, but also from regulating and cultural services (MEA 2005). Examples of regulating services provided by agroforestry include soil protection, micro-climate moderation, and reduction of water runoff. Cultural services include maintenance of landscape beauty, cultural heritage, and recreation (McAdam et al. 2009; Tsonkova et al. 2012; Plieninger 2011). By providing a multi-functional landscape, agroforestry can play a key role in the European goal of sustainable rural development (Primdahl 2010). Many of the traditional agroforestry systems across Europe are also known to be local-scale biodiversity hotspots (Herzog 1998; Rigueiro-Rodriguez et al. 2009; Bergmeier et al. 2010; Mosquera-Losada et al. 2012). Hence the promotion of agroforestry can improve biodiversity in agricultural areas (Benayas and Bullock 2012).

Designing appropriate multifunctional land-use systems requires an understanding of the trade-offs and synergies among different ecosystem services (Foley et al. 2005; Bennett et al. 2009). For example in the Iberian dehesa system, current livestock intensification practices are undermining other regulating and cultural services and thereby system resilience (Gibbons et al 2008; Moreno & Pulido 2009). There is an urgent and practical need for improving our understanding of how multiple ecosystem services can best be managed in a sustainable, integrated manner at field-, farm-, and landscape-scales (Carpenter et al. 2006; Rodriguez et al. 2006; Willemen et al. 2008). Within multifunctional systems, there is often the possibility to substitute the use of farm inputs such as fertiliser and pesticides with “knowledge”. Members of this consortium led the first assessments of the multiple ecosystem services of agroforestry systems in Europe (Palma et al. 2007a;b) in the SAFE project. However the process of describing and developing enhanced coupled “bundles” of multiple ecosystem services remains severely understudied (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010).

An important untested central hypothesis, to be tested in this project is that the appropriate integration of trees with agriculture can result in a higher net level of positive ecosystem services in a range of pedo-climatic conditions, than the separate management of trees and agriculture (Fig 1.2). This relationship is not just limited to provisioning services, but also includes reduction of negative environmental effects such as nitrate leaching, nitrous oxide and methane emissions, reduced water quality, and decline of pollinators.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Rela

tiv

e t

ree y

ield

per

hecta

re

Relative crop yield per hectare

France

Spain

Netherlands

5


Fig 1.2 A key hypothesis of this project is that agroforestry, the integration of trees and shrubs with agriculture, can lead to a higher value of ecosystem services per hectare than disaggregated agricultural

and woodland systems.

Socio-economic benefits of agroforestry Even if agroforestry systems offer higher values of positive ecosystem services per hectare than disaggregated agriculture and forestry, this does not mean that agroforestry will be adopted. Agroforestry systems and practices also need to be financially viable and socially-acceptable to practitioners (Graves et al. 2007). In practice, this means that practitioners need mechanisms for translating the societal and environmental benefits of agroforestry systems into increased profitability, for example through increased product values. Some of the systems to be studied in AGFORWARD are increasing product value by actively marketing “agroforestry” on their products.

1.2 Progress beyond the state-of-the-art

1.2.1 Current state of the art in the area Since the signing of Agenda 21 at the Rio Summit in 1992, policy-makers have sought to promote multi-functional land use systems such as agroforestry. The research institutions in this project have described the ecological and economic importance of agroforestry practices across the different agroclimatic regions of Europe (Schultz et al. 1987; Schnabel & Ferreira 2004; Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al. 2009; Mosquera-Losada et al. 2012). The following section highlights existing European research on agroforestry, the need to advance this with participative research, and the formation of the European Agroforestry Federation.

Existing European research The EU-funded Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe (SAFE) project (2001-2005) was successful in increasing our understanding of the interactions between crop and trees (Table 1.1). Five SAFE teams are participating in AGFORWARD including the coordination team (INRA-SYSTEM, Dr. C. Dupraz). SAFE included a review of existing silvoarable systems in Europe (Eichhorn et al. 2006), and increased our knowledge of such tree-cropping systems in terms of light interception, root distribution, and water uptake. The project led to the development and parameterisation of models to describe the inter-relationships between tree and crops, relative to arable and forest systems (van der Werf et al. 2007) (Table 1.6). These models were then used to evaluate the profitability of a range of silvoarable systems at plot- and farm-scales (Graves et al. 2007). These results generally highlighted that silvoarable agroforestry could generate competitive returns, but in practice such systems were/are often undermined by woodland grant systems favouring high tree densities, or single-farm-payments which were unclear about the presence of trees. The research also included an initial assessment of the role

6


that agroforestry could play in reducing soil erosion, reducing nitrogen leaching and increasing landscape biodiversity (Palma et al. 2007). The AGFORWARD project will extend this research beyond silvoarable systems (i.e. tree and crop agroforestry) to include silvopastoral agroforestry (i.e. tree and livestock systems), agro-silvopastoral (tree, crop and livestock systems), and systems with fruit- and olive-trees.

Research by members of this consortium on global silvopastoral systems, the relationships between agroforestry and biodiversity, and carbon sequestration have demonstrated the potential of both traditional and modern agroforestry systems to combine productivity with other positive ecosystem services (Mosquera-Losada et al. 2004; 2011; Rois et al. 2006). Members of this consortium, USC and AFBI, were also instrumental in an FP5 project (2003-2005) culminating in the first International Congress of Silvopastoralism in Europe. The resulting declaration (International Congress of Silvopastoralism 2004) recommended the promotion of silvopastoral systems to improve stability, profitability, biodiversity, and rural development, and the identification of management problems at a local level. For instance, UNEX and UCPH have identified management practices to halt degradation and to improve the resilience of extensive silvopastoral systems (Moreno & Pulido 2009; Plieninger et al. 2010; Pulido et al. 2010).

An AGFORWARD participant, ISA, was involved with the EU-funded Models for Adaptive Forest Management (MOTIVE) project (2009-2013), which improved forest growth and yield models to assist best management practices in response to climate change. ISA was also involved with the SUBERWOOD project (2001-2005) which modelled the silvopastoral ‘montado’ ecosystem to provide a decision support tool for stakeholders (Paulo 2011). The response to climate change is also the focus of the CLIMSAVE project, in which a participant, CRAN, is providing modelling input (Table 1.1). Another member, EFI, has developed and published a set of indicators of biodiversity within agroforestry, funded by the European Environment Agency (Rois et al. 2006). The FP7 project BIOBIO, led by FDEA, has developed a set of indicators of biodiversity applicable to European farming systems (Herzog et al. 2012), which have been used by UNEX to confirm the high biodiversity of Iberian agro-silvopastoral systems (Lorente et al. 2011).

Table 1.1 Some of the research projects, which AGFORWARD will draw upon

Project Description

Silvoarable Agroforestry for Europe (SAFE) Field experiments and modelling of silvoarable (tree + crop) systems

Indicators of Biodiversity in EU farm systems (BIOBIO) Assessment of indicators of biodiversity

Models for Adaptive Forest Management (MOTIVE) Forest growth and climate change

Using participatory research Padel et al. (2010) report that significant areas of European agricultural research are failing to deliver practical knowledge to end users in rural communities, due to either poor research priorities or knowledge exchange (often related to the lack of relevance and buy-in of the results produced due to poor initial stakeholder involvement). A participatory research approach (PRA) can promote the uptake of innovations by farmers (Pretty 1995; Farrington & Martin 1987; Friend et al. 2009). By encouraging “ecological” knowledge systems, the research emphasis shifts from developing of technologies FOR farmers to one of working WITH farmers (Röling & Jiggins 1998). The advantages of a participatory research approach include recognising the importance of local knowledge, enhancing local capabilities, accommodating diversity and complexity, adherence to the ethical principle that stakeholders should be involved in research that is likely to have social and financial impacts on them, and greater producer ownership of the problems and solutions (Friend et al. 2009).

Compared to monoculture systems, successful agroforestry management requires a more systematic understanding of ecosystem interactions, and site-specific adaptation of practices is usually crucial. Hence the role of participative research to provide opportunities for farmer education and

7


experimentation to adapt systems has been highlighted in tropical research by the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) (Scherr 1991a; Mercer 2004). Such a participatory approach also capitalises on the value of local farmers’ experience and can help address weaknesses in agroforestry scientific knowledge through partnership (Scherr 1991b). The AGFORWARD consortium includes active participation of farmer-led groups, such as ACTA and AGROOF which are already leading an exciting and engaging programme for promoting agroforestry in France.

Within Europe, these approaches are now being recognised as an important part of developing sustainable agricultural production systems (that consider ecosystem services) and have been used particularly in crop experimentation and breeding (e.g. Wolfe et al. 2008). Recent FP7 projects such as SOLID and OSCAR include participatory research alongside experimental research to ensure that research is (a) addressing end users’ needs; (b) that the quality of the science is robust, and; c) that novel technologies and innovations are relevant to and therefore taken up by appropriate end users.

Promotion of agroforestry and the European Agroforestry Federation AGFORWARD will also build on existing best practices of agroforestry promotion, such as the work of ACTA and AGROOF, described above. Critical to agroforestry promotion in Europe is the newly-formed European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF), which is a participant in the AGFORWARD project. This new Federation is built from a network of national European agroforestry organisations, has members in 18 European countries, and has already established policy contacts in Brussels trying to promote agroforestry in the next CAP. Other participants (TEI, USC, UNEX and CRAN) have worked together to lead an international workshop focused on “Mediterranean agroforestry and its role in the present environmental challenges” (Pantera 2011). In Spain, several demonstration sites have been set up to promote the use of silvopasture in closed and open forests to promote biodiversity, and to reduce fire risk and thereby carbon losses.

1.2.2. Moving beyond the current state of art

1) What is the current extent and trends of agroforestry in Europe?

Land cover and land use classifications in Europe have traditionally separated “agriculture” from “forestry”, and in turn this feeds through to discrete policies and incentives. In order to support multi-functional land use, as recognised by the Agenda 21 agreement at the Rio Summit, policy makers and planners need access to a more nuanced land cover classification systems that explicitly consider agroforestry as a continuum between cropland, livestock, and woodland systems. ICRAF, based in Kenya, has been instrumental in developing protocols to address this, and will work with the European Forestry Institute (EFI) to advance this in AGFORWARD. ICRAF has shown that it is useful to consider agroforestry at different scales. For example there is “field agroforestry” where there are significant interactions between trees and farming systems at a field level, or “landscape agroforestry” where there is interaction at a landscape scale (Fig 1.3).

Fig 1.3 Agroforestry systems can be considered at a range of scales: field-scale, farm-scale and

landscape-scale.

8


Within the EU27, a key recent development in land use and cover classification, has been the development of the Land Use Cover Aerial Frame Survey (LUCAS) (Eurostat, 2009; Gallego, 2002). Since 2009, this survey has been gathering simultaneous on-site measurements of land cover and land use, which are also harmonised with agricultural census information and forestry inventories. Our current understanding of EU27 land cover and use will be progressed through an examination of how the LUCAS data can be used to describe the current extent of agroforestry (be it at a field- or a landscape-scale). These data will also be compared with other land cover classifications based on remote sensing. For example high resolution forest and agriculture layers from the EC’s new Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) service will be used to identify information content that could help in agroforestry mapping (e.g. the support information on forest area predominantly used for agricultural practices). Regarding the European Corine Land Cover Classification, the current class 244 ”Agro-forestry” as part of ”Heterogeneous agricultural areas” will be examined with respect to its usefulness for stakeholders.

In the light of the above, the objective of the first work-package (WP1) is to describe the current extent of agroforestry in Europe, in order to create maps describing the extent of “field-scale” and “landscape-scale” agroforestry. In addition WP1 will use existing EU27 data to provide a categorisation of Europe in terms of areas of high natural and cultural value, and areas focused on tree-crop, arable crop, and livestock production. In a recent EU27 revision of areas of High Nature Value (HNV), type 1 HNV farmland includes grazed woodlands, pollarded woodlands, and wood pastures (Parachinni et al. 2008; Oppermann et al. 2012). Type 2 HNV farmland includes mosaics of low intensity agriculture, including permanent crops like fruit orchards and olive groves.

WP1 will also seek to describe the context in which agroforestry functions across the EU27. Initial information about the use of the Rural Development Policy Measure 222 (First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land) will be screened to identify trends in agroforestry establishment in different parts of Europe, to provide initial data to further policy work (WP8).

The above analyses will also help identify the relative importance of field-scale agroforestry and landscape-scale agroforestry in the different agroclimatic regions (Metzger et al. 2005) of Europe, e.g. Mediterranean (24.1% of the European surface), Continental (20.4%), Atlantic (19.8%), Alpine (17.8%), and Boreal (13.7%). A systematic review will be undertaken of the main changes experienced by agroforestry across Northern and Southern Europe. These include excessive degradation leading to desertification (in Southern Europe), abandonment resulting in excessive encroachment with increase of fire risk depending on climatic conditions (Mediterranean and Nordic countries in Europe) and removal of in-field trees (Temperate countries). These three changes will be characterized by a range of indicators related to policy, demographic data on settlement/migration, data on land use change, land and labour productivity, and rates of investment in land.

2) Identifying, developing and field-testing innovations to improve the benefits and viability of agroforestry systems in Europe

Early agroforestry researchers quickly recognized that the most appropriate agroforestry practice and system in a particular location depends on both the objectives of the land manager and the specific site conditions. On the basis of this early work, ICRAF developed the Diagnosis and Design framework. Since then, substantial research has shown that the successful development and promotion of agroforestry practices and systems is most likely to occur where researchers work with practitioners to identify the key constraints to current land use systems and to then develop and field test innovations and designs to address those constraints.

AGFORWARD will use a participatory research approach within work-packages 2, 3, 4 and 5, so that the project participants will work with land managers and other stakeholders, using existing knowledge and experience of their own multifunctional systems, to identify key challenges and potential innovations to improve their systems. These innovations will then be evaluated experimentally and on-farm. This participatory research and development approach forms a second area where AGFORWARD moves beyond the current state of the art. AGFORWARD brings together scientists and extension workers with

9


established track records in developing new agroforestry practices for more than 20 years with enthusiastic farmers and food producers. In preparing the proposal, we identified two management approaches that we could take: to focus on geographic areas (and to consider the key functions) or to focus on the key functions of existing land use systems that could benefit from agroforestry (and to address these across geographic areas). In essence, the output is similar, and the AGFORWARD consortium has chosen the latter approach. The reasons for this are:

i) A key driver for promoting agroforestry practices is a need to reduce the negative externalities with existing production systems (e.g. use of trees to minimise greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, and to minimise nutrient leaching and soil erosion in arable systems).

ii) Conversely agroforestry can be promoted by delivering products of high quality and value (e.g. use of trees to enhance animal welfare in poultry systems, or the use of HNV labelled products to promote traditional agroforestry systems and the associated valuable rural landscapes).

iii) Farmers across Europe typically distinguish themselves in terms of the key products that they produce. So agroforestry should be promoted through the integration of agroforestry practices with practices that farmers are already familiar with. The farming literature includes publications such as “Livestock Farmer” or “Cereal Farmer”, and national agricultural shows and policies are increasingly targeted to specialist sectors. These existing groups provide a ready-made focus for the research, development, policy and promotion activities.

iv) A focus on the function of the existing system, rather than geographical areas, allows us to capitalise on learning from different parts of Europe and promote knowledge-transfer.

We have identified four target sectors for the promotion of improved agroforestry and each one is associated with a WP (Fig 1.4). Using a participative research approach to improve net ecosystem service provision in these four sectors, combined with adaptation and modelling at field and landscape levels, will allow us to provide effective guidance to policy makers and practitioners. The way in which we will extend the current state of the art for each system in examined in the following sections.

Fig 1.4 The AGFORWARD project will promote agroforestry practices related to four key existing land sectors: improve the resilience of existing agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value (HNCV) (WP2), integrating livestock and crops into high value tree systems (WP3), agroforestry for arable systems (WP4) and agroforestry for livestock systems (WP5).

2a) Participatory research to improve the resilience of high natural and cultural value agroforestry

The first participatory research and development network (WP2) focuses on improving the resilience of existing (primarily extensive) agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value (HNCV). Such system are typically semi-natural agro-silvopastoral systems where cultivation and/or grazing have

10


been practised among trees that are deliberately maintained and managed, and the tree layer often forms through natural regeneration. Prominent examples include the Dehesa and Montado systems in Spain and Portugal, grazed oak woodlands in Sardinia, and the Valonia oak systems in Greece (Table 1.2). Agroforestry systems of high natural and cultural value in Northern Europe include wood pastures of Scandinavia and Germany, and the parkland systems in the UK. Other examples include cattle grazing in trans-Danubian wooded meadows. The focus areas for setting up stakeholder groups to manage the participatory research include Mediterranean areas (i.e. dehesa and montado systems), Continental areas (i.e. cattle grazing in wooded meadows in Romania and Germany), and Atlantic, Boreal, and Pannonian areas (UK, France, Sweden, Hungary) (Table 1.2).

In order to sustain the high natural and cultural value of such systems, there is a critical need to improve their resilience to environmental and economic threats and stresses (Manning et al. 2006; Moreno & Pulido 2009; Jose 2009). Current social and economic drivers can result in lost traditional empirical knowledge, reduced profitability, and the divergent processes of land abandonment and intensification (Asner et al. 2004). Intensification often involves the simplification of the system and intensive input use (Manning et al., 2006), which in turn leads to unsustainable grazing pressure, soil degradation, and a loss of habitat and biological diversity (Moreno & Pulido 2009; Pereira et al. 2004; Eldridge et al. 2011). By contrast, extensification results in tree and shrub encroachment and again often a decline in diversity (Asner et al 2004; Archer 2010). The potential negative effects of woody encroachment (although beneficial for tree regeneration) on water and nutrient cycling, biodiversity, livestock carrying capacity and profitability require further research (Rivest et al. 2011; Rolo & Moreno 2012; Rolo et al. 2012). AGFORWARD participants have the skills to develop and apply innovations and then to evaluate those innovations with models to identify optimal tree and shrubs densities for specific uses and climatic conditions.

A common problem across the systems is the unbalanced ages of the trees caused by poor tree regeneration (Table 1.2). Trees can be planted with protective fencing, but this can be expensive. Using nursery shrubs has given promising results (Gómez-Aparicio 2009) but further research is needed to disentangle environmental, species and management effects (Rolo et al. 2013). The use of lightweight GPS collar receivers suitable for monitoring animal position is one promising way to improve tree, pasture and soil regeneration in some degraded areas (Turner et al. 2000).

Innovations: Nursery shrubs can promote tree regeneration in silvopastures, by attracting animals to disperse tree seeds, protecting seedlings from browsing herbivores, and improving soil fertility and the micro-climate (Moreno & Pulido 2009). This facilitative phenomenon, called the “nurse plant effect” is widespread among Mediterranean oak species seedlings (Pulido et al. 2010; Plieninger et al. 2010; Rolo et al. 2013). The regional government of Extremadura in Spain wishes to incorporate these principles in its funding program for sustainable management of dehesas, but there are uncertainties about practical implementation, and in-farm demonstrations are currently lacking.

Soil quality loss is also a concern in many semi-natural silvopastoral systems (Coelho et al. 2004). The integration of ecologically-complex organic materials such as ramial wood (Dodelin et al. 2007) and biomass charcoal (Kimetu et al. 2008) have been proposed. Improving the quality and the seasonal distribution of the understorey feed can also provide benefits. Biodiverse permanent pastures rich in legumes (Aguiar et al. 2011; Texeira et al. 2011) and browsable shrubs (e.g. Medicago arborea, Atriplex sp., Acacia sp., Morus spp) are of practical and research interest (Moreno & Pulido 2012; Rivest et al. 2013).

Some HNCV agroforestry system are producing and marketing high value products (e.g. pig meat in the Dehesa system; Calama et al. 2010). Acorn-derived products, such as tannins for leather and antioxidant uses, are currently underdeveloped. Other systems (e.g. Parkland systems in the UK) are of high cultural value. Valuing the aesthetic value of HNCV landscapes is a challenge. The participants in AGFORWARD, working with producers, manufacturers, and trading groups, are able to improve the

11


understanding of the cultural values of such systems and to use this valuation to improve the financial and economic resilience of such systems.

Table 1.2 Description of ten stakeholder groups related to ten agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value in five agro-climatic regions of Europe. Key knowledge gaps, the system, and participants and examples of some of the stakeholders are described. (ASP: Agrosilvopastoral system).

Agro-climatic region

Identified knowledge gaps

Country Description of agroforestry system of high natural and cultural value

Link participant and example key stakeholder groups

Medi-terra-nean

Carbon sequester-ation; tree

Spain Iberian dehesas (Quercus ilex) (EU Directive Habitat Code 6310); ASP

UNEX; private farmers (ASAJA); producer assoc.; regional government

regeneration; soil quality; fire risk; pasture Improvement

Portugal Iberian montados Quercus suber (EU Directive Habitat Code 6310) (Agro-silvo-pastoral system)

ISA; private farmers (Herdade da Cascavel; Herdade dos Clérigos); producer associations (APFC); and marketing organisations.

Greece Valonia oak silvopastoral systems EU Directive Habitats (Code 9350)

TEI, network of private farmers and market-oriented organisations

Italy Grazed oak woodlands in Sardinia (Natura 2000 site) (ASP)

CNR, Comuni Bono e Bottida-Ente Foreste della Sardegna; farmers network ; users of common land

Contin-ental

Soil quality; C sequestration; tree regenera-

Germany Ancient landscapes south of Berlin (Spreewald) including silvopastoral sites

BTU, management of UNESCO biosphere reserve, private farmers

tion; pasture improvement; tourism value

Romania Ancient wood pastures in S. Transylvania (UNESCO World Heritage site) (ASP)

UBB; grazing associations; farmers; tourism trade; market organisations

Atlantic

Recreational value; Carbon sequestration;

UK Parkland systems (recreational use); Sites of Special Scientific Interest & National Nature Reserves

CRAN, Bedfordshire County Council; National Trust; Woodland Trust

Climate change; Nitrate

France Bocage, ancient landscape of tree hedgerow networks (Breizh-Bocage)

INRA; APCA Regional chamber of agriculture of Brittany

Boreal GPS-collared reindeers to guide grazing

Sweden Fennoscandian wooded pastures (EU Directive Habitats Code 9070)

EFI, National Association of Swedish Sami; Njaarke village

Pann-onian

Cultural value carbon; tree regeneration; soil quality

Hungary Pannonian ancient oak wood EU Directive Habitats (code 91GO, 91HO, 91MO); Natura 2000 (ASP)

NYME; network of private farmers and marketing organisations; National Parks

Case-study: Herdade dos Esquerdos (Fertiprado, Portugal) is a 360 ha montado with scattered holm and cork oak where biodiverse pastures rich in legumes have been promoted. While maintaining a higher stocking rate (sheep and pigs) than most montados, soil carbon increases have resulted in extra farm income from the Portuguese Carbon Fund (www.clima.pt/fpc).

12


2b) Participatory research to improve agroforestry for high value tree systems

The second participatory research and development network (WP3) focuses on agroforestry for high value tree systems including fruit trees (e.g. olive, carob, pine-nut, walnut, almond, chestnut, apple, pear), and trees grown for high value timber (e.g. walnut and wild cherry). The network focuses on six stakeholder groups covering systems in Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Switzerland, and the UK (Table 1.3).

Table 1.3 Experimental sites and resources for six stakeholder groups to identify and develop and field test innovative agroforestry practices associated with agroforestry with high value trees.

Count-ry

Knowledge gaps

Short description of key experimental and demonstration sites

Participant and example stakeholders

Gree-ce

Social acceptance of agroforestry

2 ha hybrid walnut and wild cherry trees established in 2003; intercropped with wheat and maize (first 2 years) and then wheat and legumes. (40o19’N; 21o30’E)

TEI, owners, agronomist municipality officers and young farmers association

Resilience of olive systems

10 ha of traditional agroforestry systems with olive trees intercropped with wheat, barley and legumes (39o56’ N: 23o39’ E) (Paliouri village)

TEI, Owners, farm advisors, local young farmers association

Spain Technical effects of grazing and

Co-operative owned chestnut forest in Galicia (with stands of different ages) with or without grazing (with autochthonous breeds).

USC, cooperative; ADEGA ecological and rare breed associations

ecological services

>300 ha of hybrid walnut and wild cherry in 2 different localities established at Madrigal de la Vera in 1998; now managed as a low-input silvopastoral scheme

UNEX, Bosques Naturales Company, COSE (Nat. Assoc. of Silviculturists).

Switzerland

Technical and economic evaluation,

Sweet cherry production intercropped with berries, vegetables and crops near Möhlin. Pioneer farmer experiment; (annual farmer questionnaire, tree measurement every 3 years).

FDEA, Organic farmer; AGRIDEA Extension and Agroforestry Association Coordinator

including biodiversity and cultural value

Traditional chestnut “selva” on biodiversity rich grassland (often under nature protection), re-vitalized for landscaping, tourism and nature protection, in Bregaglia valley, Graubünden.

FDEA- ART; Josef Hartmann, Dept. for Nature & Environment, Canton of Graubünden

France Income from livestock, tree density;

20 ha of orchard systems (70, 100 and 600 trees per ha) with sheep grazing in Saint Michel d’Halescourt Department, Seine Maritime, France

APCA, farmer;

grass production; profitability

Experimental pre-verger site of cherry and plum trees with sheep; site and data for bio-economic assessments Laxou in Lorraine (East France)

APCA AREFE – CTIFL (Technical Center for Fruits & Vegetables)

UK Sustainability of apple orchards; grazing as biological pest control tool

“Sustainable” cider systems combining intercrops and sheep management in Hereford, England

CRAN, Heineken, UK; cider growers networks

2 ha of dispersed apple agroforestry system (planted 1994) with 10 m crop alleys in E. England.

ORC; Wakelyns agroforestry

Small orchards in Ireland use the Heritage value variety “Bramley”; in orchard trials will include cider varieties and studies on grazing with sheep.

AFBI Loughall, local apple producer groups

Italy Technical & economic evaluation of

17 ha traditional and high-density intercropped olive orchards. Measuring yield of wild asparagus intercropped with olives/annuals vs. pure stands.

CRA OLI, Spoleto (PG), Olive oil consortium

olive agroforestry

Olive orchards with chickens and sheep and crops, including wild asparagus (42°48’48’’N, 12°39’15’’E)

CRA OLI, local farmer

13


The CAP provided substantial support across the EU15 for the establishment and maintenance of olive systems, typically on poor soils, sloping sites, and dry environments (Schultz et al. 1987; Lawson et al. 2005). Today, the removal of production-related subsidies threatens the financial sustainability of many olive systems and traditional fruit orchards. Sustainability of the systems is also threatened by climate change, and its effects on drought, fire and wind damage (Hemery et al. 2010).

Case Study: Bosques Naturales in Extremadura, Spain (www.bosques-naturales.com) planted > 300 ha of arable land in 1998 with walnuts and cherries to produce high quality timber. The plantation was managed intensively (3-4 harrows of the alleys per year, 2-3 herbicide application per year in the tree lines, and ferti-irrigation). Ten years later, in collaboration with UNEX and USC, the company changed to a more sustainable low-input silvopastoral system transforming near 1000 ha of plantations.

Within WP3, scientists and practitioners will work together to identify the key challenges to the resilience of current systems, and will propose and develop agroforestry innovations and designs. Papanastasis (2004), a member of this consortium, concludes that many olive and orchard systems will be abandoned unless such changes are made. Innovations include legume intercrops to improve soil nutrition, companion planting to reduce pests and diseases, and using intercrops or grazing to create additional income. Planting intercrops can also encourage pollinators and reduce soil erosion, and leguminous plants can fix nitrogen. In Spain some co-operatives are shifting from intensive olive plantations towards organic silvopastoral systems (Gloria et al. 2008). In the UK, there is a strong interest in the cider-production industry for more sustainable methods of production. Participants in this project (FDEA-ART) are involved in the QUESSA project on functional biodiversity. In some countries, like Greece, there is a biased perception that production levels in agroforestry systems are lower and labour requirements higher than in monoculture systems.

2c) Participatory research on agroforestry for arable systems

The third Participatory Research and Development Network (WP4) will focus on the application of agroforestry in arable systems (Table 1.4). Arable agriculture is the dominant agricultural land use in much of Europe. It has also been the principal source of some of the key negative environmental externalities associated with intensive agriculture. Four particular concerns are the maintenance of soil and water quality, the impact on biodiversity including pollinators, greenhouse emissions, and the resilience of crops to climate change. These concerns can be addressed through the judicious introduction and/or management of woody plants across arable land while assuring food security. Reisner et al. (2007) indicate that it is possible to profitably integrate trees and crops and reduce soil erosion and nitrate leaching on up to 40% of European arable land. Palma et al. (2007) demonstrated that landscape biodiversity could also be increased by the introduction of agroforestry systems.

Addressing environmental externalities and renewable energy are becoming elements of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). One current proposal is that at least 7% of the utilised agricultural area of each farm be allocated as ecological focus areas, which could include landscape features, buffer strips or afforested areas (EC 2010b). In addition there is an increased demand for and use of biomass crops for bioenergy (Burgess et al. 2012). Much of this bioenergy production is predicted to occur on arable land from bioenergy crops (EU 2009) raising the issue of a “food vs fuel” dilemma (Harve & Pilgrim 2011). One option is integrate food and biomass production. For example, the “AgroForstEnergie” project in Germany integrated short rotation coppice (SRC) in alley cropping systems as a source of woody biomass (FNR 2012). The same approach is being examined by AGFORWARD participants as part of the AGROCOP action within the Wood-Wisdom network (AGROCOP 2012). In many parts of Europe, windbreaks, hedgerows and shelterbelts are a dominant landscape feature, providing many environmental externalities, as well as useful products (e.g. wood, fruit) with the full potential still to be determined. Subject to the support of the stakeholder groups, one of innovations that will be investigated in WP4 is a comprehensive system analysis of ecological and economic benefits of silvoarable and hedgerow systems to combine food and bioenergy production.

14


Table 1.4 Description of eight stakeholder groups related to eight agroforestry systems related to arable systems, including key knowledge gaps, and the participants and examples of key stakeholders.

Region Knowledge gaps Short description of key experimental and demonstration sites

Participant & stakeholders

Germany Interactions of food, forage & bioenergy production, C sequestration, N & P cycle, microclimate, biodiversity, land equivalent ratio(LER)

70 ha silvoarable system (planted 2007-10) with poplar/robinia and forage/cash crops in Brandenburg; 50 ha (planted in 2007) with poplar/willow/ robinia and cash crops in Thuringia (alley cropping); 600 ha arable area with integrated windbreaks in Brandenburg; 40 ha alley cropping (planted 2008) in Bavaria

BTU; Farmers and Farmers Associations (LVB, DLG); Agriculture Ministry (BMELV)

France C sequestration, N leaching, biodiversity enhancement; resilience to climate change

50 ha experimental INRA silvoarable site (planted 1994) at Restinclières, Hérault, SE France. 12 ha broad-leaved trees with vegetables and cereal crops (since 1996) at Gard/Vézénobres; extensive historic field measurements gave LERs of 1.3-1.6. New experiment on climate change (reduced rainfall)

INRA:UMR – SYSTEM Chambre d'agriculture de l'Hérault

Evaluation of low input systems; C and N cycle, pruning; crops adapted for agroforestry

62 ha (planted 1977) low-input systems at Poitou-Charentes (West France): « Les Eduts », crops and walnut trees/ wild cherry tree 30 ha agroforestry plot (planted 2008-09) at Lasalle-Beauvais Institute

ACTA; “No Pesticide” and “Ecophyto” Network, AGROOF

Greece and Crete

Yield interactions, effect on soil, water and biodiversity

450 ha hedgerow (walnut/ poplar and shrubs) system (planted 1913) in Greece on arable land

TEI, local farmers assoc.

1 ha arable-cropped grapefruit orchards in Crete TEI-NAGREFF

Hungary Yield, micro-climate, Biodiversity, CO2 & N

2 ha alley-cropping (planted in 2012) with fast growing tree species (Paulownia tomentosa)

NYME; co-operatives

Italy Yield interactions 1.1 ha silvoarable system (planted in 1994) with integrated farm management (wheat/clover)

CNR; Nat. Ass. Plant’n Forestry

Biodiversity and reducing pollution

11 ha of alley cropping with many wood species (Quercus, Juglans, Populus, Tilia, Fraxinus, Acer, Carya)

VENETO

Spain

C sequestration, nutrient leaching, water competition

14 ha (planted in 1998) irrigated walnut plantations comparing intercropped (legume forage) with unmanaged soil

UNEX, Bosques Naturales, CTFC, Agroforex

Crop interactions; Soil C sequestration,

50 ha (planted 1998-2000) Walnut and Cherry plantations with crops

USC, farm assoc. & companies

Switzer-land

C balance; bio-diversity; pollination

1 ha of poplar from 2011 intercropping with maize and rotational grassland.

FDEA; farmer innovation

Ecological interactions

5.6 ha of apple (Malus domestica) from 2009 with strawberry, wheat, canola, flower intercrops.

FDEA; farmer innovation

UK Soil C, biodiversity, productivity of trees and alley crops, pollination

50 ha organic silvoarable agroforestry system (planted 2009) nr Peterborough, E. England Comprises 4500 apple trees and organic crop rotation; owned by Vice-Chairman of EURAF

ORC; Abacus Organics

LER on willow, yield interaction data, Effects on pest and disease levels.

Organic research comprising two short rotation coppice systems (1.5 ha hazel (1995) and 2 ha willow (1998) with organic arable crop rotation in alleys; craft materials

ORC, Wakelyns Agroforestry Products

15


Case study: reclamation and restoration of disturbed landscapes is a socio-economic issue in Eastern Germany. Research shows ecological benefits (in terms of soil quality, C sequestration, microclimate, and biodiversity, soil erosion control), and economical benefits (product diversification, extensification, higher income) from agroforestry compared to conventional arable systems

A second research area relates to resource use efficiency, including carbon (C) sequestration and the specific humus quality in the soil of arable agroforestry systems. Based on ongoing research in Germany and the UK (Upson & Burgess 2012), AGFORWARD will describe the C cycling in agroforestry systems. Working with WP6, a decision support tool, incorporating life cycle assessments, will be used to determine overall C sequestration and its long-term stability and quality. Further research is also needed on the synergistic effects between crops and trees in relation to solar radiation use, and the effects of crop selection and tree pruning practice. Trees in arable systems could also improve nutrient cycling and reduce nitrogen (N) leaching. Innovative research could determine if agroforestry results in more efficient use of N, phosphorus (P) and potassium (K).

A third research aspect will relate to the potential of agroforestry, including hedgerows, to promote pollination and predation functions of biodiversity, also in relation to the weed management along tree rows. Methods for quantifying those ecosystem services are currently being developed in the FP7 project QUESSA. FDEA-ART will adapt those methods for application in the agroforestry context and they will be applied in selected experimental sites.

Climate change has been identified as one of the main threat to arable crops across Europe for the future (Brisson et al. 2010). Recent findings indicate that intercrops in agroforestry systems may be more resilient to climate change, as the tree cover may reduce some concerning events such as early heat and drought stresses on cereals (BTU, INRA-SYSTEM, unpublished data). INRA will investigate the behaviour of intercrops facing climate change both by modelling and field experiments (rain exclusion in a mature walnut-wheat agroforestry system).

Within the WP4 experimental network, novel practices for optimizing agroforestry systems in arable lands will be tested according to the local site and socio-economic conditions, and throughout a continuous verification with the Participative Research and Development Network. The novel practices that might be tested include new pruning regimes, changes in tree density, use of shade-tolerant crop varieties (e.g. wheat) in alley cropping system, and methods of weed control.

2d) Participatory research on agroforestry for livestock farmers

The fourth Participatory Research and Development Network (WP5) will focus on the application of agroforestry in livestock production systems (Table 1.5). During the past 20 years there has been an increasing appreciation of the extent of the negative externalities associated with livestock production, either as grazed ruminants or animals such a pigs and poultry (Burgess & Morris 2012). The key negative externalities include methane production by ruminants, ammonia and nitrous oxide production by all forms of livestock production and emissions related to feed production. For example, in the UK, the negative externalities associated with the gaseous emissions of livestock production have an annual cost of more than one billion Euros (Spencer et al. 2008); recently it was estimated that Europe’s meat and dairy consumption was responsible for 14% of the total CO2 emissions in the EU (Weidema et al. 2008), and livestock production is seen as a key driver of global land use changes, with resulting impacts on climate change and biodiversity. Thus, methods to increase the efficient use of land are desirable. Agroforestry can achieve this by combining feed production with the provision of other ecosystem services. In addition, the integration of trees with livestock is seen as one method to mitigate ammonia emissions, and to store carbon as an offset for methane and nitrous oxide production.

Across Europe there is also an increasing emphasis on animal welfare. Previous research has demonstrated welfare benefits from agroforestry and in some countries producers have capitalised on this in product marketing i.e. the promotion of woodland eggs in the UK, and agroforestry-raised

16


chicken in France. In Spain, agroforestry has been associated with the preservation of indigenous breeds. Nevertheless, agroforestry systems currently constitute only a minor part of the total livestock production due to management uncertainty, lack of appropriate methods for planning feeding and production, and risk for unacceptable high nutrient deposition or uneven spatial distribution. Regarding the latter, recent research shows integrating pigs in a willow/miscanthus plantation results in a much smaller risk for N leaching than typically seen on grassland with the same stocking rate (Sørensen et al. 2013) and that the pigs only caused limited damage to the trees (Horsted et al. 2012).

Table 1.5 Experimental sites and resources for nine stakeholder groups to identify and develop and field test innovative practices to promote agroforestry in livestock systems

Product and region

Knowledge gaps Description of key sites Participant, and stakeholder groups

Poultry In UK

How to obtain a superior product quality that can justify higher consumer price? (Influence of feed items supplied in the agro-forestry system). How to manage labour in such systems efficiently? How to avoid too heavy nutrient load (and thus N leaching)?

Experimental facility at FAI Farms, Oxford, England

ORC, FAI Farms, Woodland egg groups

Monitoring and network site in N. Ireland

Retailers, AFBI, Farmer groups

Poultry in Denmark

Plantation eggs monitoring and demonstration sites (APA)

AU, Farmer group; Animal Protection Association (APA)

Poultry in Netherlands

Monitoring and demonstration site of fruit and willow tree system with chicken

LBI, farmer group Trees for Chickens and ‘www.adoptee reenkip.nl’

Ruminants In UK

How to obtain the best balance between resilient feed production (including feed from woody species) and carbon in trees

Experimental site with hedgerows

ORC

Demonstration sites in N Ireland

AFBI, Irish Organic Farmers/Growers Assoc

Ruminants in France

Lusignan experimental center

INRA, UE Ferlus

Several monitoring sites with ruminants integrated

ACTA

Ruminants in Netherlands

Fodder trees monitoring and demonstration site

LBI, Duinboeren and Fodder Trees, farmers

Pigs in Denmark

How to utilize the ‘range area’ most efficiently as feed source? How to avoid too heavy nutrient loads and ensure an appropriate distribution?

Experimental site at AU; monitoring and demonstration sites at private farms

AU; farmer groups; Animal Protection Association; Friland Food Organic abbatoir

Pigs in Spain Experimental site with Quercus with different stocking rates

USC, COREN (large meat company), pig breed association

Pigs in Italy Experimental site with willow and pigs

VEN, Regional Agency

Cross cutting What mechanisms foster efficient marketing of high value livestock products from agroforestry systems?

Several existing high value chains

USC (Remedia; COREN) AU, ORC (Woodland eggs), ACTA, LBI

WP5 will advance current research on the benefits of agroforestry in relation to livestock production across three sectors: i) poultry, ii) ruminants, and iii) pigs (Table 1.5). The three sectors are studied because each has its own specific user-groups and constraints. The Participatory Research and Development network will be used to identify innovations to address the most important bottlenecks

17


identified by the stakeholder groups. Innovations to be evaluated include improving carbon neutrality and product quality whilst maintaining profitability for producers. The work, will also feed into a wider sustainability assessment in WP 6 and 7.

The participative research focussed on agroforestry with poultry will build on existing poultry/egg production schemes and networks already established in UK (Woodland Trust), the Netherlands (“Trees for Chickens”), and Denmark (“Plantation Eggs”) (Table 1.5). The participative research focused on agroforestry with ruminants will focus on established networks in the UK, the Netherlands, and France. The participative research focused on pigs will be centred in Italy, Denmark and Spain. The Italian system involves farmers producing pigs in willow/poplar plantations (Veneto Agricoltura). The Danish system involves small businesses producing ‘Gourmet meat’ that integrate pigs in plantations (supported by Danish Animal protection association), and Woodland pigs marketed through the Danish organic abbatoir Friland Food.

Across WP2, 3, 4 and 5 the development and evaluation of identified innovative practices will be undertaken either within existing agroforestry experiments or on-farm. Given the participatory nature of the work, it is not possible to fully pre-determine the innovations to be tested – these will be identified first through the individual stakeholder working groups and agreed at the first annual meeting. However the innovations will require evaluation of their effects on production and key ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and resilience to climate change.

3) Adaptation and evaluation of innovations at field and landscape scales

A distinguishing feature of agroforestry practices and systems is that there is a wide range of possible tree, crop, and livestock arrangements which cannot be simply addressed by experimentation within the constraints of a four-year project. Hence the adaptation and evaluation of the field-scale aspects of agroforestry systems are most effectively undertaken through the use of modelling tools (Graves et al. 2005). Such tools also allow agroforestry systems to be compared to monoculture arable, livestock or forestry systems, and to enable predictions of the inputs and outputs of agroforestry systems in new locations ranging from Northern to Southern Europe. The models can also help inform further field experimentation by highlighting the key parameters and inputs that have the greatest effect on the outputs of the system.

Consortium partners (CRAN, ISA, FDEA and INRA-SYSTEM) developed a unique suite of agroforestry models (Table 1.6) specifically for European conditions during the SAFE FP5 programme. This prior experience will greatly facilitate modification of the models for the innovations identified by the participatory networks (WP2-WP5), ensuring that progress starts from a highly advanced position. The models have already been validated and used to describe the interaction between trees and crops, and they can therefore be used to describe, optimise and evaluate arable, silvoarable agroforestry, and forestry systems. The Yield-SAFE model has also been developed to describe systems such as cider-orchard and cider-orchard intercropping (Vylupek & Burgess. 2011).

The adaptation and evaluation of innovations is proposed at i) field- and farm-scale (WP6) and at ii) landscape scale (WP7). Most provisioning services, i.e. food, feed, timber, and wood-fuel production, are scale-neutral, in that the yield per hectare is relatively insensitive to the size of the area. Some of the key regulating ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, nitrous oxide emissions, and groundwater recharge are also relatively insensitive to the plot area, while other ecosystem services such as water filtration, pollination, landscape diversity or recreation require consideration of the landscape scale.

WP6 will extend the capacity and use of the SAFE suite of models, which simulate tree, crop, and grass interactions, to describe the key livestock interactions. This will be achieved by deriving local estimates of system carrying capacities, calculated from the utilisable metabolisable energy provided by intercrop and tree biomass, and by using life cycle assessment to relate livestock outputs to levels of feed provision (Graves et al. 2011b; Leinonen et al. 2012).

18


Table 1.6 Description of the key agroforestry models and tools available to the project.

Agroforestry model

Description Reference

Yield-SAFE Daily-time-step (up-to 180 year rotation) parameter sparse mechanistic model of tree and crop interactions; sensitive to solar radiation, temperature and rainfall

van der Werf et al (2007); Graves et al. (2010)

Farm-SAFE Integrates biophysical outputs of Yield-SAFE with financial/economic data for analyses and environmental outputs at farm-scale

Graves et al (2011a)

Hi-sAFe Daily-time-step parameter-intensive model (with more processes than Yield-SAFE), suitable for simulations of tree plantation design, pruning, root behaviour, N limitation and leaching, C allocation, microclimate and climate change

Dupraz et al. (2005); Talbot (2011); Talbot & Dupraz (2011);

WoodPaM Deterministic mosaic model simulating long-term vegetation dynamics in wood-pastures driven by grazing impacts & climate.

Gillet (2008).

The capacity of the SAFE suite of models to function within an ecosystems framework will also be enhanced by integrating life cycle assessment models and data developed by CRAN (e.g. Williams et al. 2010). This will allow the evaluation of “environmental burdens”, particularly on regulating services (e.g. nitrates and GHG emissions) for agroforestry systems relative to status quo monoculture systems. Other models such as WoodPam (Guillet 2008) will be adapted to simulate natural vegetation dynamics in extensive wood pastures under different climate and management scenarios.

The decision on the orientation of farm enterprises (including the uptake or non-uptake of agroforestry) is made by individual farmers, mainly based on economic considerations and on additional expectations related to personal preferences (Sereke 2012). Hence the selected agroforestry practices will be reviewed from both a financial and an economic perspective. This will be undertaken at a farm (WP6) and a landscape scale (WP7) to provide policy and practical advice.

As described in WP2-WP5, some agroforestry practices are being driven by retailers and consumers seeking quality food products associated with social and environmental sustainability. Examples of companies, associated with the participants, of supplying and promoting agroforestry products and services are presented in Table 2.8. Appropriate product labelling, associated with controlled certification processes, can enable consumers to buy products with reduced exposure to pesticides and perhaps nutrition and health benefits (Smith-Spangler et al. 2012). Products derived from agroforestry systems can also be marketed in terms of their environmental value, as evidenced in accreditation and certification schemes, life cycle assessments, and positive public perceptions of the role of trees in agricultural systems. Potential benefits include reduced soil erosion and wildfire risk, higher biodiversity, lower use of pesticides, reduced nitrate leaching, increased carbon stocks, and improved animal welfare. Product quality can also be related to specific areas, such as the PDO (Protected Designation of Origin), TSG (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed), and PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) designations. Related to the above, WP6 will undertake both financial (private farmer perspective) and economic (public social perspective) analyses of the profitability and viability of selected agroforestry innovations. This stakeholder-led approach will greatly advance the state of the art in agroforestry modelling.

There is an EU target to prevent any further decline in biodiversity. The Water Framework Directive also places targets in terms of water quality. Unlike provisioning services, biodiversity and water quality enhancement require a landscape-scale approach. Firstly the effect of additional land cover types in terms of the provisioning of biodiversity, landscape, recreational or water quality enhancement need not be additive. Moreover the contribution of different land covers and land uses to these ecosystem services will be spatially specific. For example a wood on a hill will have a greater landscape impact than a wood within a steep valley. The configuration of the land cover types may also be important (Fig 1.5). The FP7 project BIOBIO, led by a participant of this project, has revealed strong evidence of the positive

http://euroconbio.blogspot.com.es/2012/11/long-term-vegetation-dynamics-in-wood.html

19


relationships among habitat diversity and biodiversity in different farming systems across Europe (Herzog et al. 2012).

Fig 1.5 The spatial scale and spatial configuration of agroforestry systems is important for the delivery of some ecosystem services.

Because the effect of agroforestry on the trade-offs and synergies between some ecosystem services is so spatially determined, the landscape analysis needs to be undertaken for representative case-study landscapes (Fig 1.6). Within such sample landscapes, the consequences of agroforestry uptake for European regions, identified in WP1, will be assessed.

Fig 1.6 Upscaling of the agroforestry systems 4) What are the most effective ways of promoting agroforestry in Europe?

The successful uptake of agroforestry requires both an enabling policy environment and the interest, participation, and determination of farmers and other businesses. These are considered in turn.

The members of the AGFORWARD consortium have been at the forefront of seeking to guide agroforestry policy in the EU based on sound science. In part, thanks to the knowledge acquired in previous projects undertaken by the members of this consortium, land with some existing agroforestry systems were eligible for direct support under the first pillar of the current phase of the Common Agricultural Policy. It was also agreed that agroforestry can be promoted at a national level through the second pillar Rural Development Programmes. However the success of this intervention has varied across Europe. It is important to know the reasons for this, in order to address constraints and therefore increase the effectiveness of agroforestry measures in the next phase of the CAP like, for example, the 50 trees per hectare rule (The rule states that agroforestry systems with more than 50 trees/ha cannot be granted with direct payments of the CAP; this is a strong disincentive for farmers to adopt agroforestry). The rule was not applied in all European countries, and is still a concern in some countries.

20


In WP8, the AGFORWARD project will seek to relate to results from the participative research and the field- and landscape-evaluations to identify best practices in agroforestry policy. The inventory and evaluation of the rural development and agri-environment measures and their impact on the different agroforestry practices and systems across Europe will also help to provide guidance to policy makers to promote agroforestry as a sustainable land use option. Within the Consortium we are aware that whilst some agroforestry policies are agreed at a national level, in some countries (i.e. Spain) decisions are taken at a federal state or regional level.

The final area where work is needed in terms of developing agroforestry practices that are competitive and provide socio-environmental enhancements, is to improve the dissemination and transfer of agroforestry knowledge. AGFORWARD includes three international organisations experienced in promoting sound land use practices (EFI, ICRAF and EURAF) and farmer-led organisations with experience of promoting agroforestry on the ground (ACTA). ACTA, working in France, has encouraged more than 700 farmers to develop agroforestry systems during the past 5 years. Similarly the project draws on the experience of USC working with RAPCA (Networks of Pastures-Firebreaks Areas in Andalucía, Spain) which has promoted agroforestry systems across 6500 ha in Andalusia involving more than 222 herders. Indeed, together with other regional silvopastoral programmes, 20000 ha of silvopastures were enhanced in Spain, benefiting almost 1500 farmers.

The four participative research and development networks, described in WP2, 3, 4 and 5 provide a firm foundation on which to develop the dissemination activity (WP9). The dissemination strategy and activity is described further in Section 3.2. Overall, the networks will involve 33 stakeholder groups distributed across the different agroclimatic zones and different land-use sectors of Europe. Each stakeholder group will comprise scientists, practitioners, extension staff, and EU businesses directly selling food and/or other ecosystem services to the public. The practical demonstration of such systems is important as “seeing and believing” is one of the strongest ways to promote change and agroforestry uptake. The evaluation and modelling of those activities (WP6 and WP7) will allow the results to be related in both financial and economic terms at both farm- and landscape scales.

The successful uptake and adoption of agroforestry by land managers, who have not previously considered agroforestry, will require clear demonstration of the benefits. This may require the need for a relatively simple message, such as the value of agroforestry in mitigating climate change and improving the resilience of the environment to current changes. New media, including videos in most of the languages of Europe, can be readily accessed through the internet. The newly established European Agroforestry Federation also provides an excellent foundation for disseminating best agroforestry practices across Europe. AGFORWARD will also communicate its results through its existing connections with a wide range of European-wide organisations (Table 1.7).

Table 1.7 The AGFORWARD project will liaise closely with a range of pan-European groups

Area Organisation Status

Europe European Agroforestry Federation Participant Europe European Forest Institute Participant International International Centre for Research on Agroforestry Participant Europe European Forum for Nature Conservation and Pastoralism Existing links Europe COPA COGECA Existing links Europe IEEP- Institute for European Environmental Policy Existing links Europe European Landowners' Association Existing links Europe European Centre for Nature Conservation Existing links Europe Friends of the Countryside Existing links Europe European Environmental Agency Existing links Mediterranean USSE; European Association of the silvicultural farmers Existing links Mediterranean ARCMED, an institution gathering forest owners associations Existing links

21


1.3 Scientific and Technical Methodology and Associated Work Plan (1 page)

1.3.1 Overall strategy The working objectives have been translated into ten work-packages including project management. The relationship between the working objectives and work-packages is presented in Table 1.8. The work packages have been designed to aid smooth organisation (Fig 1.7).

Table 1.8 Relation between working objectives and work-packages

Working objectives Work-packages

Understanding agroforestry where it is present WP1

Identify, develop and field-test innovations to improve the benefits and viability of agroforestry systems in Europe

WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5

Adapt and evaluate agroforestry configurations for locations where agroforestry is currently not-practised or in recession, and quantify opportunities for uptake

WP6, WP7

Promote the wide adoption of appropriate agroforestry systems across Europe WP8, WP9

Project management WP10

The first work-package (WP1) of AGFORWARD examines the current extent of European agroforestry in the context of existing EU land cover and land use classifications. The next four work-packages (WP2-WP5) uses a participative research approach to identify, develop, test and demonstrate new agroforestry practices in four key user groups: managers of extensive agroforestry systems of high cultural and nature value (WP2), farmers growing high value trees (WP3), arable farmers (WP4) and livestock farmers (WP5). Effectively the structure of each work-package is similar, with each led by an experienced researcher or practitioner with a passion for the user group. Within each work-package, participants will establish 6-10 stakeholder workgroups focused on specific areas and sub-sectors. Each group will comprise at least one scientific partner and 8-15 other stakeholders such as extension services, farmers, forest owners, local/regional rural development programme managers, and policy-makers. Where possible the stakeholder groups will incorporate existing agroforestry producer groups. For example there are existing ‘woodland egg/chicken’ schemes in the UK, Netherlands and Denmark, and producer associations in Iberian dehesas.

The implications of the tested innovations in WP2-WP5 will be modelled and evaluated at a field- and farm-scale (WP6) and at a landscape- scale (WP7). WP6 and WP7 will use an ecosystem services framework informed by landscape ecology and ecological economics to assess the full range (including their interactions) of economic, social and environmental benefits provided by agroforestry. Close collaboration will be maintained between WP6 and WP7, as much of the evaluation will be based on the same models. The key actions for WP7 include the collation of landscape data, and the modeling and evaluation of innovative agroforestry practices at a landscape scale (e.g. ecological networks, fluxes of water, nutrients) within specific scenarios.

There are two work-packages focused on promotion, in terms of guiding agroforestry policy development (WP8) and the communication of the results to practitioners and the general public (WP9). WP8 will work with current policy revision and with data given by WP1-WP5 and modelling from WP6-WP7 in order to provide policy recommendations for the studied sectors at farm- and landscape-scales. WP9 will work closely with Work-packages 2 to 7 to ensure effective dissemination of information by using the networks of stakeholder groups (policy makers, business, producers, advisors), as well as web-based resources, magazines, and other channels. ACTA and EURAF members have substantial experience of producing promotional material related to agroforestry. EURAF will target all European countries, including those that are not participating in AGFORWARD. Examples of best practice and on-farm innovations will be disseminated using new media such as You-Tube, together with a programme of field visits. Management of the project is covered in WP10.

22


1.3.2 Timing of the different WPs and their components The Gantt chart (Table 1.9) gives an overview of the project timing. The AGFORWARD project will run over 48 months.

Table 1.9 Timing of the work-packages and their components (Gantt Chart)

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

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

WP1 Context

T1.1 Inventory of extent of AF in EU (D1.2) D

T1.2 Describe external AF innovations (D1.1) D

T1.2 Stratification of agroforestry (M1.1) M

T1.4 Factors framing AF development (D1.3) D

T1.5 Co-ordination of WP1

WP2 HNCV agroforestry

T2.1 Establish PRD network (M2.1) M

T2.2 Characterise system (D2.1) D

T2.3 Identify testable innovations (M2.2) and establish protocols M2.3)

M M

T2.4 Test, analyse, interpret and cost innovation (M2.4; D2.2)

M D

T2.5 Evaluate innovations on-farm to produce guidelines (M2.5; D2.3)

M D

T2.6 Dissemination of results (M2.6) M


WP3 High value tree agroforestry




M M


M D


M D



23


Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

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

WP4 Agroforestry for arable systems




M M


M D


M D



WP5 Agroforestry for livestock systems




M M


M D


M D



WP6 Field- and farm-evaluation

T6.1 Collate climate database (M6.1) M

T6.2 Identify practice/system to model (M6.2) M

T6.3 Collate market-values for models (M6.3) M

T6.4 Collate non-market value data (M6.3) M

T6.5 Improve Hi- and Yield-SAFE (M6.4; M6.5) M

T6.6 Collect biophysical data (M6.3) M

T6.7 Collect managem’t data for WP7(M6.3) M

T6.8 Modelling innovations (D6.1; D6.2; D6.3) D D D

T6.9 Co-ordinate WP6

24


Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

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

WP7 Landscape scale-evaluation

T7.1 Synthesise existing knowledge; create protocols (M7.1; D7.1)

M D

T7.2 Select and characterise systems/landscapes (M7.2; M7.3)

M M

T7.3 Assess biodiversity and ecosystem systems under scenarios (M7.4; D7.2)

M D

T7.4 Economic analysis (M7.5) M

T7.5 Identify synergies/trade-offs (D7.3) D

T7.6 Upscale and map results (D7.4) D


WP8 Agroforestry policy development

T8.1 Describe recent policy measures (D8.1) D

T8.2 Policy scenarios for WP7 (M8.2) M

T8.3 Analysis of success of policies to produce map (M8.1) and recommendations (D8.2)

M D


WP9 Dissemination

T9.1 Establish engagement protocol (M9.1) M

T9.2 Establish (D9.1) web platform and produce updates (M9.2)

M DM

M M M M M M M M M M M M M

T9.3 Produce literature and guidance for groups including network maps (D9.2), national associations (D9.3) literature (D9.6)

D D D

T9.4 Communicate with stakeholders (M9.3) M M M M M M M

T9.5 Produce education tools including model (D9.3) and student conference (D9.5)

D D

T9.6 Coordinate confer’e/workshops (D9.7) D


yolande

Texte surligné

yolande

Texte surligné

25


Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 8

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

WP10 Project Management

T10.1 Co-ordination of the project

T10.2 Executive and General Assembly Meetings (M10.1; M10.2)

M M M M M M M M

T10.3 Progress reports and final reports X X X

T10.4 Financial reports X X X

Key: Milestones: M; Deliverables: D: X: Production of progress, final, and financial reports. Shaded areas give indicative timing of the main tasks.

26


1.3.3. Detailed work description broken down into work packages:

The work-package list is shown in Table 1.10. The Deliverable list is shown in Table 1.11. The Milestone list is shown in Table 1.12. This is then followed by descriptions of each individual work-package. The summary of the effort per participant and per work-package is shown in Table 1.13. Table 1.10 Work package list

Work package

No1

Work package title Type of

activity

2

Lead partici-pant No

3

Lead partici-

pant short name

Person-months

4

Start month

5

End month

1 Context – existing agroforestry systems in Europe

RTD 2 EFI 42 1 27

2 Participatory research to improve the resilience of high nature and cultural value agroforestry

RTD 9 UNEX 109 1 48

3 Participatory research on agroforestry with high value tree systems

RTD 5 TEI 113 1 48

4 Participatory research on agroforestry for arable systems

RTD 8 BTU 130.5 1 48

5 Participatory research on agroforestry for livestock systems

RTD 14 AU 92 1 48

6. Field-- and farm-scale evaluation of innovations

RTD 10 ISA 183.5 1 48

7 Landscape-scale evaluation of innovative agroforestry for biodiversity, ecosystem services and profitable farms

RTD 11 UCPH 124 3 48

8 Agroforestry policy development

RTD 4 USC

59.5 1 48

9 Dissemination OTHER

3 AGROOF 79 1 48

10 Project management MGT 1 CRAN 31 1 48

TOTAL 963.5

1.3.4. Graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies

The AGFORWARD project is split into five sub-sections (See table 1.8) and ten work-packages (Figure 1.7). The graphical presentation in the form of an advancing arrow attempts to show that the overarching goal of the project to promote agroforestry practices that will advance European

1 Work package number: WP 1 – WP n.

2 Please indicate one activity per work package: RTD = Research and technological development (; DEM = Demonstration;

MGT = Management of the consortium; OTHER = Other specific activities, if applicable in this call including any activities

to prepare for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and coordination activities) According to the

description of the funding scheme given previously. 3 Number of the participant leading the work in this work package. 4 The total number of person-months allocated to each work package. 5 Measured in months from the project start date (month 1).

27


sustainable rural development, i.e. improved competitiveness, and social and environmental enhancement. The Project Management (WP10) interacts with each of the work-packages.

Figure 1.7 Pert diagram of the components of the project showing their interdependencies. Although not shown, the WP10 Project Management activity interacts with each of the work-packages.

28


1.3.5 Description of any significant risks, and associated contingency plans AGFORWARD has undertaken an assessment of the key risks associated with the project, determined mitigation methods, and the remaining risk (Table 1.11). In addition two additional risks have been identified.

The large number of participants means that some have relatively small budgets, and there is a risk that the data will not reach the synthesising Work Packages e.g. WP6 & WP7. The leaders of WP2-5 (the participative networks) will communicate at least monthly with those of WP6-7, through the WP leader meetings. In case of problems at individual sites, the WP Leaders Committee will take early corrective measures to ensure successful completion of deliverables.

We have also considered the risk that guidance on efficient sustainable agroforestry practices does not reach practitioners. This is minimised by the stakeholder networks of WP2-5 creating on-the-ground links with agroforestry practitioners, and the inclusion of farmer organisations e.g. ACPA and EURAF which are already effectively promoting agroforestry.

Table 1.11 Assessment of key risks associated with project and associated contingency plans, after inclusion of mitigation measures

WP Risk Mitigation measures Likeliho

od

(L)

Effect (E)

Rem

ainin

g risk (L x E)

1-10 WP leader is incapacitated

The project includes a range of experienced researchers who could assume responsibility

1 1 1

1-10 Computer failure Data will be stored in more than one location 1 1 1

1-10 Participants leaving the project

a) Collect timely reports on work, b) If there is sufficient experience within AGFORWARD, the Project Co-ordinator and the WP Leaders Committee will reallocate resources, and in extreme cases liaise with the Desk Officer to identify an alternative participant.

1 1 1

2-7 Fire risk to individual site

The risk of fire is usually less in agroforestry systems than forestry systems, other sites are available

1 1 1

1-9 Methodological problems

Participants have experience of tasks; Inter-WP technical meetings between partners involved

1 1 1

1 Lack of spatial-agroforestry data for D1.2

WP1 devoted to task at an early stage; EFI and EURAF has an extensive pan-European network to representation for the whole European territory

2 1 2

1-9 Delay/lack of data input from partners

a) Inter-WP meetings between WPs; b) WP6-7 teams have access to and experience of using parameter spare models and access to existing datasets

1 1 1

1-10 Poor interaction within WP

a) WP leader to identify reasons for the difficulties; b) Involvement of Project Co-ordinator to resolve issue

1 1 1

1-10 Reluctance by participants to cooperate

Joint examination of procedures, defining the needs of operational people, reinforcement of activities for appropriate data collection campaigns & planning

1 1 1

10 Project Co-ordinator is incapacitated

The project includes people with previous project experience; a deputy Project Co-ordinator has been identified; the project will employ a project administrator, and has an Advisory Board

1 2 2

1: Low, 2: Medium; 3: High

29


B2.Implementation

2.1 Management structure and procedures

Management structures AGFORWARD aims to foster agroforestry implementation across Europe utilising the substantial research and extension experience of individuals and organisations with an established track-record in working with stakeholders and in agroforestry research, development and promotion. To foster the large-scale adoption of agroforestry in Europe requires an extensive network of participants and countries. However this also complicates management. AGFORWARD is aware of this and has designed management structures and procedures to address the key difficulties likely to arise in project implementation. It has to be mentioned that all of the participants in this project have successfully collaborated in previous international agroforestry projects including research and dissemination (e.g. SAFE, BIOBIO). Many of the participants are also already working closely together in the development and the initial dissemination activities of the newly formed European Agroforestry Federation. This existing “social capital” should not be under-estimated and it provides a solid pre-existing foundation from which we can take the research project forward. The management structure for AGFORWARD integrates nine key positions and/or structures (Fig 2.1). These are 1) the Project Co-ordinator, 2) the Project Secretary, 3) Work-package leaders (WP leaders), 4) the Executive Board, 5) Participant Representatives, 6) the General Assembly, 7) the External Experts Advisory Board, 8) Stakeholder Workshop Facilitators, and 9) Participants. Each position or structure is described below.

Fig 2.1 Management structure for the AGFORWARD project

Project Co-ordinator The Coordinator is the legal entity acting as the intermediary between the Parties and the European Commission. The Coordinator shall, in addition to its responsibilities as a Party, perform the tasks assigned to it as described in this EC-GA and the Consortium Agreement. The Project Co-ordinator is Dr P. Burgess of Cranfield University in the UK. The Project Co-ordinator has overall responsibility for

30


the successful implementation of the project, In the event of the Project Co-ordinator being incapacitated, Dr A. Graves, also of Cranfield University, will deputise.

Project Secretary AGFORWARD will employ a Project Secretary, based at Cranfield University, to oversee administrative and financial arrangements. The Secretary will report directly to the Project Co-ordinator (Figure 2.1). Because the demand for time is likely to be unevenly distributed, Cranfield University will seek to provide additional administrative back-up during particularly demanding times such as the submission of progress reports.

Work-package leaders (WP leaders) The AGFORWARD project has been sub-divided into ten work-packages. Each work-package is led by a work-package leader, who is a senior academic or practitioner with previous experience of managing multi-disciplinary research projects. Work-packages 2, 3, 4 and 5 will specifically use a participative research approach where the participants will work with key stakeholders to undertake experiments and develop, field-test and demonstrate innovative agroforestry practices; as such we consider this process to be a research, technology and development activity. WP9 focuses on dissemination activities, and WP10 covers project management. The leader of WP10 is the Project Co-ordinator.

The day-to-day co-ordination of each work-package is the responsibility of the WP Leader, who is responsible for delivering the deliverables and milestones on-time and to the required standard.

The WP leader will work with the participants in work-package, to progress the work-plan based on the stated objectives, tasks, deliverables and milestones (see pages 26-49). In case of disagreement between the WP leader and the participants, the WP leader should consult the Project Co-ordinator who should find an agreed position in consultation with the Executive Board.

Executive Board The successful delivery of the project will depend on the WP leaders working closely together. The Executive Board is the supervisory body for the execution of the Project which shall report to and be accountable to the General Assembly. The Executive Board comprises the Project Co-ordinator, the leaders of work-packages 1-9, and a representative from INRA (as the most significant beneficiary not represented). The Executive Board will hold a meeting at least every two months. The majority of meetings will be web- or Skype-based to minimise time, financial and environmental costs. The Executive Board will be chaired by the Project Co-ordinator (or nominated deputy); the minutes will be taken by the Project Secretary (or nominated deputy). In order to represent wider views, other participants may be co-opted in a non-voting capacity. Physical meetings of the Executive Board are planned for every six months, coinciding once each year with the Annual Meeting of the General Assembly. These meetings will take place at a range of locations across Europe, starting with the launch meeting at Cranfield in the UK (Table 2.1). The tasks of the Executive Board are described in the Consortium Agreement. The key tasks are

outlined below. • To prepare the meetings, propose decisions and prepare the agenda of the General Assembly • To seek a consensus among the Parties. • To be responsible for the proper execution and implementation of the decisions of the

General Assembly. • To monitor the effective and efficient implementation of the Project.

31


• To collect information at least every six (6) months on the progress of the Project, examine that information to assess the compliance of the Project with the Consortium Plan and, if necessary, propose modifications of the Consortium Plan to the General Assembly.

• To agree on the Members of the Management Support Team, upon a proposal by the Coordinator

• To support the Coordinator in preparing meetings with the European Commission and in preparing related data and deliverables

• To prepare the content and timing of press releases and joint publications by the Consortium or proposed by the European Commission

Participant Representative Each participating organisation has an identified representative who is the key point of contact for the Executive Board and the Project Co-ordinator. The Participant Representative will be responsible for their organisation implementing the tasks, and producing the deliverables and milestones.

General Assembly The General Assembly is the ultimate decision-making body of the Consortium. The General Assembly, comprising one representative from 24 participating organisations, i.e. each organisation except APCA and AFAF. In line with the original project proposal, APCA and AFAF will be represented by ACTA. Five meetings of the General Assembly are scheduled during the project: at the initial inception meeting at Cranfield in the UK, and the four annual meetings (Table 2.1). The structure and rules for the operation of the General Assembly are outlined in the Consortium Agreement. Some key points are outlined here for information. The General Assembly shall not deliberate and decide validly unless two-thirds (2/3) of its members are present or represented (quorum). However an Extraordinary Meeting of the General Assembly can be called upon the written request of the Executive Board or one third of the Members of the General Assembly The task of the General Assembly is to support the WP Leaders Committee and the Project Co-ordinator to achieve the goal and aims of the project. The decisions that need to be taken by the General Assembly include: Content, finances and intellectual property rights • Proposals for changes to Annex I of the EC-GA to be agreed by the European Commission • Changes to the Consortium Plan (including the Consortium Budget) • Withdrawals from Attachment 1 (Background included), or additions to Attachment 2

(Background excluded) or Attachment 4 (Listed Affiliated Entities) Evolution of the Consortium • Entry or withdrawal of a new party to the Consortium • Declaration of a party to be a defaulting party • Remedies to be performed by a Defaulting Party • Termination of a Defaulting Party’s participation in the Consortium and measures relating

thereto • Proposal to the European Commission for a change of the Coordinator, for suspension of all or

part of the Project, or for termination of the project and the Consortium Agreement A European Agroforestry Conference is planned by EURAF for the summer of 2014 and 2016. To capitalise on the synergies of this with the project, AGFORWARD will plan to hold an Annual General Meeting in the summer of each year, to coincide with the planned EURAF meetings in 2014 and 2016. This means that the first Annual General Meeting will occur at about six months (Fig 2.1). A summer General Assembly will also facilitate meaningful field visits during the meeting.

32


Table 2.1 Proposed timing and location and the General Assembly and physical Executive Board meetings Month Indicative date Proposed location of

meeting Description Attendance

1 January 2014 Cranfield, UK Launch meeting General Assembly

6 June 2014 Cottbus or Montpellier First Annual Meeting General Assembly

12 December 2014 Paris (TBC) Executive Board Executive Board

18 June 2015 Athens (TBC) Second Annual Meeting General Assembly

24 December 2015 Copenhagen (TBC) Executive Board Executive Board

29 May 2016 To be confirmed Second Annual Meeting General Assembly

36 December 2016 To be confirmed Executive Board Meeting Executive Board

42 June 2017 To be confirmed Fourth Annual Meeting General Assembly

48 December 2017 Brussels Final Presentation Executive Board

External Expert Advisory Board (EEAB) To support the Project Co-ordinator, AGFORWARD will have an External Expert Advisory Board, comprising at least three senior academics or practitioners who have successfully managed international research projects related to agroforestry research and/or promotion. Two of the members will come from outside of the EU and at least one member will come from within the EU. An External Expert Advisory Board (EEAB) will be appointed and steered by the Executive Board. The EEAB shall assist and facilitate the decisions made by the General Assembly. The members of the EEAB are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement no later than thirty (30) days after their nomination or before any confidential information will be exchanged, whichever date is earlier. The Coordinator shall write the minutes of the EEAB meetings and prepare the implementation of the EEAB's suggestions. The EEAB members shall be allowed to participate in General Assembly meetings upon invitation but have not any voting rights. No advisors will be directly employed by a project participant. A travel and subsistence budget has been included within WP10 to allow the advisors to attend the annual meetings. The role of the External Expert Advisory Board is provide critical and wise feedback on the project’s operation and performance, and in critical cases to provide external quality control. Experts invited to act on the Board are shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Members invited to the External Expert Advisory Board Name Specialism

Prof Jose Shibu, University of Missouri, USA Ecological research on agroforestry

Ms Antonia Andúgar, Sen. Policy Advisor, COPA-COGEOA, EU EU agriculture; farmer livelihoods

Prof Herman Van Keulen, Wageningen, Netherlands Land use systems modelling

Prof P.K. Nair, University of Florida, USA Dissemination; land management

Stakeholder Workgroup Facilitator A specific task with WP2, WP3, WP4 and WP5 is the formation of stakeholder workgroups. Each stakeholder workgroup will have a named facilitator from a participant in the project. The stakeholder facilitators will report and liaise to the WP leaders of WP2, WP3, WP4 or WP5, who are members of the Executive Committee.

Management procedures

The AGFORWARD project will seek to ensure professional management processes in each stage of the project. Project management will adhere to the rules of FP7. This section outlines the key

33


procedures in relation to decision making, information flow, performance control, knowledge management, risk management, and gender issues.

Decision-making procedures and conflict resolution Official decision-making procedures will aim to maximise efficacy and transparency whilst minimising time consumption. The AGFORWARD project comprises 23 participating organisations who will be bound by the terms and conditions of: 1) the Grant Agreement that establishes the rights and obligations between the contractors and the Commission, 2) a Consortium Agreement between the partners that fixes the rights and obligations of the participants to each other, and 3) a set of rules established at the start of the project.

Three key decision-making levels are within work-packages, between work-packages, and within the overall project. Within a work-package, all participants involved in a task will have the opportunity to liaise with the WP leader who will make the decisions necessary to deliver successfully the deliverables and milestones. When decisions involve more than one work-package, they will be taken by the WP-leaders in liaison with the people associated with that task. If everybody agrees, the decisions will be reported by the WP leader in the Executive Board (EB). The minutes of EB Meetings are circulated to each participant. If a vote is required within a EB then each member will have one vote (n=10), with the Project Co-ordinator having the casting vote.

High level decisions must be ratified by the General Assembly. If required, the General Assembly can meet through an electronic conference. It is hoped that most issues will be resolved by consensus either by a show of hands in a physical meeting, or by each participant representative having one vote (n=23). If there is a contentious issue between participants and the Project Co-ordinator that cannot be amicably resolved, then the Project Co-ordinator will seek the advice of the External Expert Advisory Board.

Information flows The Project Co-ordinator has already established an AGFORWARD e-mail discussion management system which will be the prime source of daily communication amongst project participants. Face-to-face communication will also take place using Skype. Video-conferences will be used if required. Written and oral communication will be conducted in English, with the exception of some within-country stakeholder workgroup meetings.

The Project Secretary, working with the Project-Co-ordinator, will implement a web-based Project Management tool for communication within the project, with login protection. All WP leaders, all Participant representatives, and key participants will have access. An intranet web site will be used to deposit all reports, meeting records, and any other important information.

As detailed earlier, WP Leaders will physically meet every sixth months (Table 2.1). The physical meetings will be organised by the local participant. Each WP leader, assisted as appropriate by the representatives of key WP participants, will present their results in a PowerPoint report (to be sent at least five days in advance to each partner). Minutes of the meeting will be compiled by the Project Secretary and distributed within 10 days for agreement. The Commission will be provided with the minutes, within one month of the meeting. Each six-monthly Executive Board Meeting will consider administrative, resource management, and gender management issues.

Within a work-package, when there are active deliverables and milestones, participants will report progress to the WP leader each month. Task-reports will be discussed among the partners belonging to a particular WP in a meeting chaired by the WP leader. A WP report based on the task reports will be delivered to the Project Coordinator every six months. WP leaders will report immediately any significant problem to the Project Co-ordinator, with the aim for a resolution at the next Executive Board. Every six months, the cumulative effect of failures on the final set of project objectives will be evaluated against the deliverables.

34


Defined performance controls and quality assurance in the deliverables The quality of the milestones and deliverables from each work-package will be monitored by the Project-Co-ordinator at least six monthly based on the WP reports. Close monitoring of the project will ensure the early identification of problems. Where a milestone or deliverable is delayed the Project Co-ordinator together with the WP leader will put in mitigation measures to address the problem. If the delay affects other work-packages, a sub-committee will be established to determine the best way to solve the problem. Corrective measures will be applied if any significant deviation is shown. If partners do not fulfil previously agreed obligations, they will receive a warning followed by potential sanctions, which will be outlined in the Consortium Agreement.

Strategy for knowledge management The public presentation in conferences and publications of results derived from the AGFORWARD project will be subject to protocols developed by the Executive Board. Participants involved in significant intellectual input leading to publication will be invited to be a co-author. An agreement on Intellectual Property Rights is outlined in the Consortium Agreement. The WP9 leader will be in charge of public information.

Risk management European projects with a large consortium cannot be carried out without risk of failure in one or more tasks. The AGFORWARD consortium is strong as it covers the key institutions actively involved with agroforestry research, development and promotion in Europe. Moreover a significant number of the participants have worked together or are working together on successful research projects. The participants have experience in complex European-level research, and most have been involved in EU-funded research. An initial risk register is provided in Section 1.3.5. Within the consortium, a number of the participants have overlapping experience, so it should be possible to provide support in areas where an individual participant is facing difficulties. In developing the project proposal, each work-package leader has individually validated their work-package.

Gender issues The project has established a Gender awareness programme (See Section 5). At this stage, 36% of the participants are female, and there are two female work-package leaders. The WP Leaders Committee will review gender issues at its six-monthly management meeting.

35


2.2 Individual participants

Partner name Partner number

Work packages (leading) involved Short name Type

Cranfield University 1

WP 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 (Leading WP10)

CRAN Univers

ity

Participant URL – www.cranfield.ac.uk

Partner description – Cranfield University (CRAN) is a postgraduate-only university which specializes in Science, Technology, Engineering and Management Research and close-links with industry. The Department of Environmental Sciences and Technology at Cranfield University is world leading in integrative systems approaches to address the challenges of the energy, food, and water demand in relation to land use. It has one of the largest concentrations of soil and water scientists in Europe. Cranfield University also hosts the Farm Woodland Forum, which was a founding organisation of the European Agroforestry Federation.

Role in the project – Project Co-ordinator and Work package leader of WP10. Substantial role in socio-economic and modelling activity in WP6, and facilitation of stakeholder workgroups and experimentation in WP2 and WP3 WP1 (1 person-month): to ensure that the WP1 activities tie in with the requirements of other work-

packages WP2 (8 person-months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with parkland systems and

undertake field-work WP3 (12 person-months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with apple orchard systems

and undertake field-work WP4 (1 person-month): to provide input/interpretation of data from Silsoe silvoarable experiment WP6 (44 person-months): to develop and use the Yield-SAFE and Farm-SAFE models to model key

physical, management and economic interactions of innovations identified from WP2-WP6, and to interpret and write-up the results

WP7 (6 person-months): to develop and use the Yield-SAFE and Farm-SAFe models in the upscaling studies, and to undertake the economic analysis

WP9 (8 person-days): to contribute to the development and presentation of dissemination tools and literature

WP10 (31 person-days): to manage the project as described by work-package 10

Staff engaged in the project – Dr Paul Burgess, Senior Lecturer in Crop Ecology and Management; 23 years experience in tree and crop agronomy and economics; 19 years in temperate agroforestry research including evaluation of cultural services; currently secretary of the Farm Woodland Forum, the longest running agroforestry research network in Europe; recent research on the cultural services of trees. Dr Anil Graves, Research Fellow in Land Use Systems; social scientist with extensive experience in stakeholder analysis, bio-economic modelling of arable, livestock, agroforestry, and forestry systems Professor Jane Rickson, Professor of Soil Erosion and Conservation, National Soil Resources Institute Ms Hayley Shaw: Knowledge Exchange Manager; stakeholder engagement and communication. Dr Adrian Williams: Principal Research Fellow; expertise in life cycle assessment Ms Julia Chatterton; Research Assistant with expertise in life cycle assessment Project administrator: to be appointed; Research fellow: to be appointed

http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/

36


Partner name Partner Number

Work packages involved

Short name

Type

European Forest Institute 2

1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 (Leading WP1)

EFI International Organisation

Participant URL – www.efi.int

Partner description – EFI is an international organization established by European States and conducts research and provides policy support on issues related to forests. EFI has currently app. 130 member organizations (both research organizations and end-users of research) in Europe and beyond. Main research areas are (i) sustainability and climate change (ii) policy and governance, and (iii) foresight and information. EFI employs over 80 person-years of expert and support staff at Headquarters in Joensuu, Finland, Policy Support Office in Barcelona, Spain and in five Regional Offices located in Spain, France, Austria, Croatia, Denmark and Germany. EFI has carried out over 30 projects for the European Commission DGs on relevant forest issues at the European level. EFI puts increasing emphasis on cross-sectoral approaches in its research and development activities. With the establishment of Regional Offices, EFI has developed platforms allowing to better benefit from knowledge and know-how across Europe with efficient access to social, economic and environmental expertise covering all of Europe’s biogeographical regions. Work in the field of policy support includes enhanced support for decision takers and policy makers, for example in the high-level forum on forests ThinkForest.

Role in the project – Lead WP1, Reindeer Case WP2, contribution to WP6, 7, 8 and 9 WP1 (15 person-months). EFI is Work-package leader of WP2 and will ensure co-ordination and

synthesis of the work (T4.7). EFI will ensure that the WP1 activities tie in with the requirements of other work-packages. As WP1 leader, EFI will also provide information to the co-ordinator every 6 months to enable production of internal reports, the progress reports, and the final report. EFI will participate in the Executive Board and send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP2 (3 person-months): to undertake (with SLU) a stakeholder group focussed on reindeer in Sweden and undertake associated field-work.

WP6 (3 person-months): to contribute to the analysis of resource efficiency and provide reference values for forestry systems without grazing or cropping, and to contribute to the valuation of provisioning and other ecosystem services

WP7 (9 person-months): to participate in the cost-benefit analyses at farm and regional scales. This includes contributing to private and social cost benefit analysis of different agroforestry systems relative to traditional production systems (Task 7.4). EFI will also participate in the up-scaling to the national and European level based on the analysis of farming conditions in WP1 (Task 7.5)

WP8 (2 person-months): to contribute to the description of current policy measures (Task 8.1) and to contribute to the analysis of the success of policy measures and recommendations (Task 8.3).

WP9 (1 person-month): to contribute to the dissemination of the results.

Staff engaged in the project – Dr. Marcus Lindner is the Head of Programme ‘Sustainability and Climate Change’ at EFI. He has 20 years experience of research on climate change impacts and the development of response strategies in forest management, forest sector sustainability and goods and services assessments from European forests. He has lead and contributed to many European projects. He coordinated the development of the Tool for Sustainability Impact Assessment (ToSIA) in EFORWOOD, leads in MOTIVE the Dissemination and Stakeholder engagement and in VOLANTE the analysis of pathways towards desired land use visions. Dr. Robert Mavsar is head of EFIMED and senior researcher in forest economics. With a degree in forestry and a PhD in economics he has more than 10 years of research experience mainly on environ-mental and forest policy and economics. He coordinated (STAR TREE, FORVALUE, MASIFF) and worked in (FIRE PAARADOX, EXIOPOL, CREEA, NEWFOREX) several EU funded research projects. Dr. Michael den Herder is researcher at EFI with recent projects related to bio-energy, biodiversity and ecological research (VOLANTE, Geoland2, BioE-BioD). Currently Michael is working on land use and land use change issues and how remote sensing can contribute in assessing forest diversity and naturalness.

http://www.efi.int/

37


Dr. Diana Tuomasjukka is senior researcher at EFI and expert in sustainability impact assessment (EFORWOOD, Northern ToSIA, INFRES). She will carry out the Swedish Reindeer demonstration case together with Staffan Berg. Dr Staffan Berg is a senior researcher with 30 years’ experience of research in forest technology and the field of environmental sustainability. Staffan Berg will work in WP2 on the Swedish case study, employed directly under EFI after August 2014.



Short name

Type

EFI third party: SLU 2 2 SLU Research

Participant URL – http://www.slu.se/en/

Partner description – Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences) is an internationally-recognised university in the field of life and environmental sciences. It is affiliated to EFI.

Role in the project – WP2 (3 person-months): to implement a stakeholder group focus on reindeer in Sweden and undertake

associated field-work

Staff engaged in the project – Prof Erik Valinger is Professor of Silviculture at SLU. His research interests include the effect of reindeer grazing at the Malå Sami village has most of its activities. The aim of the case study is to evaluate effects of changes in forestry measures on the utilization of the forests and the grazing land for the reindeers in the area Dr Torgny Lind is a forest researcher at SLU

http://www.slu.se/en/

38



Work packages (leading) involved

Short name

Type

Association de Coordination Technique Agricole

3 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

ACTA

Research development

Participant URL – www.acta.asso.fr

Partner description – As network leader for animal and plant supply chains, ACTA federates 15 technical agricultural institutes (ITA). The ITAs represent the applied research level of the French agricultural research and development system. ACTA and the ITAs were created and are still directed by farmers. In an effort to balance the consortium, in determining the evaluation of European projects, the Agricultural Technical Institutes may adopt the following strategy if needed: when several ITA wish to join a consortium, ACTA appears as the only partner in the project while the others ITA as third parties. For AGFORWARD project, ACTA and the ITA’s (IDELE, IDF) have adopted this strategy.

Role in the project – Lead WP9 and participate WP1, 3, 4 ,5 ,6 ,7, 8, 9 WP7 Total: 5 person months: ACTA. ACTA will contribute to: 1. The synthesis of existing knowledge in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services (T7.1) 2. The development of protocols to assess biodiversity and ecosystem services (T7.2) and to identify

synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity, ecosystem services and profitability (social survey) (T7.5)

3. The implementation of the protocols if French sites are chosen ACTA will also send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly (ACTA: Adrien Guichaoua). The

ACTA representative will also represent participant 23 (APCA) and participant 24 (AFAF).

Staff engaged in the project – ACTA: Prof. Hélène Gross, Prof in agronomy and environment, Head of Project Biodiversity (ACTA)

ACTA : Mr. Adrien Guichaoua, European Project Manager, member of the General Assembly



Short name

Type

ACTA third party : IDELE 3

5, 6

IDELE Research

development

Participant URL – www.idele.fr

Partner description L’Institut de L’Elevage (IDELE) is the French Livestock Institute. It is the French national technical reference and normative body in livestock farming systems. It is a non-profit, non-governmental organization featuring management by livestock farmer’s federations and trade unions.

Role in the project – WP5 (5 person-months): Managing, implementation, follow up and analysis of experimentation for

agro-forestry ruminant systems; managing of working stakeholder groups in target areas. WP6 (3 person-months): Providing data for Farm-Safe and participating in analysis.

Staff engaged in the project – Eric Pottier: Head of fodder and nursing herd department Denis Gautier: Head of project in charge of silvopastoral issues Jean Christophe Moreau : Head of fodder and climate change project

http://www.acta.asso.fr/

http://www.idele.fr/

39




Short name

Type

ACTA third party : IDF 3

3, 4, 9

IDF Research

development

Participant URL – www.foretpriveefrancaise.com

Partner description The Institut pour le Développement Forestier (IDF) is the Institute for the forestry development. It is the R&D department of the CNPF (National Center of the Private Forests), in charge at the national level of the development of private forests through advisory and coordination activities, applied research, and training.

Role in the project – WP3 (1 person-months) and WP 4 (1 person-months): to develop and implement a common

methodology for the diagnosis of wood resources on the agroforestry plots (administrative details, map and location, descriptive index of the station: soil data, geographical and geomorphological references, water regime, climate and weather data, plant material , technical itineraries for planting, simplified nomenclature of the work and the other interventions, constraints, pictures, tree measurements and health status of the populations, and economic data).

WP9 (3.5 person-months): To promote agroforestry by training the farmers in the relevant techniques needed for establishing and managing the young agroforestry plantations (0 to 10 years): • Pre-project planning (setting objectives, identifying constraints, diagnosing the site, choosing the plant material and the afforestation program) • preparation of the afforestation • implementation of the plantation (installing plant material and protecting against domestic and wild animals); • maintenance of the trees (laying mulch, monitoring afforestation and tree form).

Staff engaged in the project – Philippe Van Lerberghe: plantation expertise Gregory Sadjak: expert in agrosilvopastoral systems.

http://www.foretpriveefrancaise.com/

40




Short name

Type

University of Santiago de Compostela

4 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

(Leading WP8) USC Research

Participant URL: http://www.usc.es/

Partner description: The Crop Production Department at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC) has 50 staff, and “Agroforestry Systems” is one of eight research groups. The agroforestry group has over 40 years experience in participatory silvopastoral system research with a focus on productivity (nutrition, livestock production), C sequestration, nutrient cycling, culture and biodiversity (autochthonous animal breeds, flora biodiversity). Project members have worked for national and regional authorities in the development of agri-environment measures. Staff edited books on “Silvopastoralism and Sustainable Land Management” in 2004 (CAB international) and “Agroforestry in Europe” (Springer), and wrote a report on agroforestry biodiversity indicators for EFI and the European Environment Agency. The team have published 25 JCR papers in the last 4 years and two reviews on agroforestry systems in Europe and C sequestration in “Advances in Agroforestry”. Staff are currently working on agroforestry systems with autochthonous breeds of horses, cattle and pork with local associations and companies.

Role in the project: USC leads WP8 WP1 (4 person months): USC will make available a Spanish inventory of agroforestry, and will

collaborate with EFI to describe the socio-economic aspects of existing agroforestry system in Europe and to ensure that the WP1 activities tie in with the requirements of WP8

WP3 (12 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with high value tree agroforestry in Spain and undertake field-work

WP4 (9 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with agroforestry systems for arable systems and undertake field-work

WP5 (7 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with agroforestry for livestock. USC will also lead a cross-cutting research on mechanism to foster efficient marketing of high value livestock products.

WP6 (2 person months): to support ISA in the identification of agroforestry systems and practices to model (T6.2), and to help collect data for system characterisation (T6.3), market and non-market ecosystem services (T6.4), and management and economic data (T6.7)

WP7 (3 person months): to support UPCH in data collection for one of the sample landscapes (T7.3) WP8 (16 person months): USC will co-ordinate WP8 and co-ordinate six-monthly reports on the

research (T8.4). To co-ordinate a description of recent and current policy measures related to agroforestry (T8.1), to recommend policy scenarios for WP7 (T8.2), and to co-ordinate analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3). USC will participate in the Executive Board and send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly

WP9 (2 person months): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a particular focus on policy-makers

Staff engaged in the project Prof Rosa Mosquera-Losada is Head of the ‘Crop Production’ Department, with a research focus on grasslands and forestry. Her research projects include agroforestry demonstration plots and extension teaching with commercial companies. She is responsible for the Spanish agroforestry group of the Spanish Forest Society. She is the secretary of EURAF and since 2006 she has been a member of the scientific committee in the European Grassland Federation. She is an associate editor of the Agroforestry Systems JCR journal. She is presently heading the National project AGROFOR. She has been working in research and policy with researchers and policy makers of different parts of Europe and the world. Dr A. Rigueiro-Rodríguez has a PhD in forestry and is Vice-President of the Galician Forest Society. He is also the president of the mycology Iberian society. He is an expert on botany and multiple products in forestlands. He has been working in agroforestry for 35 years. Pilar González Hernández is an animal scientist studying rangeland production systems. She has published

41


on antinutritional compounds of woody vegetation in silvopastoral systems, and stocking rates. Rosa Romero Franco: expertise in the biodiversity and botany of agroforestry systems Dr José Ramón Chantada Acosta: expertise on regional development. José Javier Santiago Freijanes. Field technician studying for PhD

42




Short name

Type

Technologiko Ekpedeftiko Idrima Stereas Elladas

5 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 (Leading WP3)

TEI RTD

Participant URL – http://www.karp.teilam.gr/Pages_Eng/index_en.htm

Partner description – The Technological Educational Institute (Τ.Ε.Ι.) of Sterea Ellada, is a higher education institute in Greece comprising of fifteen departments, more than 500 research, teaching and administration staff, and more than 10,000 students. The facilities are of international quality, capable of supporting high throughput experimentation, computing access, experimental equipment, demanding networking and distance learning activities. The Department of Forestry and Natural Environment Management is located in the city of Karpenissi, prefecture of Evritania, 70 km from the city of Lamia. Staff members have been involved in the implementation of EU projects such as FP4, FP5, FP6, COST, as well as in three national projects on agroforestry. By participating in this project, the department of Forestry & NEM, TEI Stereas Elladas, aims to scientific excellence, to expand its research horizons, and to establish stronger links with key stakeholders, farmers, environmental agencies and other research institutions.

Role in the project –WP Leader for WP3. WP1 (2 person months): TEI will provide information on agroforestry systems in Greece WP2 (9 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with oak silvopastoral systems

and undertake field-work WP3 (23 person months): TEI will co-ordinate WP3 and will provide synthesis reports of the research

every 6 months to the co-ordinator (T3.7). TEI will co-ordinate: the establishment of PRD networks (T3.1), the characterisation of the systems (T3.2), the identification of innovations to be tested (T3.3), and the experimental (T3.4) and on-farm testing (T3.5) of the innovations, followed by the promotion of guidelines (T3.6). TEI will participate in the Executive Board and send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly

WP4 (6 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with hedgerow tree systems in Greece on arable land and to undertake field-work.

WP6 (3 person months): to support ISA in the identification of agroforestry systems and practices to model (T6.2), and to help collect data for system characterisation (T6.3), market and non-market ecosystem services (T6.4), and management and economic data (T6.7)

WP8 (2 person months): to contribute to the description of recent and current policy measures related to agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3)

WP9 (1 person month): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on WP3

Staff engaged in the project – Prof Dr Anastasia Pantera, agroforestry, silvopastoral systems, forest soils, forest biology, silviculture. Prof Dr Andreas Papadopoulos, forest and rangeland ecology, climate change on forest ecosystems. Prof Dr Yannis Raftoyannis, forest Protection, Climate Change, Forest Fires, Fungi. Prof. Emeritus Dr Vassilios Papanastasis (External Collaborator) with expertise in Ecology and Management of Mediterranean Rangelands, Agroforestry, Desertification. Prof. Dr. Sotirios Kandrelis (External Collaborator) Rangeland Ecology, Agroforestry, Agroecology. Dr. Konstantinos Mantzanas (External Collaborator) Structure and Function of Agroforestry Systems, Ecology and Development of Rangeland Ecosystems, Survey and Management of Agroforestry Systems. Dr Georgios Fotiadis, (External Collaborator) Forest and Rangelands botany, Plant Sociologist. Dr Andreas Ntoulis (External Collaborator) Plant biotechnologist – phytogeography Dimitra Kaliva, Research Assistant

43


Partner name

Partner Number


Short name

Type

INRA 6 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 INRA RTD

Participant URL : http://www.international.inra.fr/ INRA-SYSTEM : http://umr-system.cirad.fr/

Partner description Ranked the number one agricultural institute in Europe and number two in the world, INRA carries out mission-oriented research for high-quality and healthy foods, competitive and sustainable agriculture and a preserved and valorised environment. INRA will involve 5 research teams located in 3 French sites : Montpellier (INRA-SYSTEM and INRA-DIASCOPE), Rennes (INRA-SAS and INRA-SAD) and Lusignan (INRA-FERLUS) in the west atlantic zone. INRA-SYSTEM is the leading research team in France on agroforestry systems, with more than 25 years of uninterrupted research and manages two major experimental agroforestry sites at Restinclières and Vézénobres. These sites are probably the only mature agroforestry sites continuously monitored since their plantation in Europe. INRA-SAS and INRA-SAD have a strong expertise on the bocage traditional agroforestry systems (dense network of hedges). AGFORWARD will bring 2 new INRA research units to the agroforestry domain, offering new skills to investigate novel aspects of agroforestry: the participatory selection of crop varieties adapted to agroforestry environments (INRA-DIASCOPE), and the design of agroforestry dairy systems (INRA-FERLUS).

Role in the project INRA will have a leading role in WP6 (plot modelling of agroforestry systems), and will actively participate in WP2, WP4, WP5 and WP7

WP2 (11 person months): INRA-SAS and INRA-SAD will co-ordinate a stakeholder group on High nature value system, offering their expertise on Bocage and the ancient landscape of tree hedgerow networks.

WP4 (26 person months; 22 with INRA-DIASCOPE and 4 with INRA-SYSTEM): INRA-DIASCOPE and INRA-SYSTEM will co-ordinate a stakeholder group focused on agroforestry for arable systems, using their experimental facilities at Restinclières and Vézénobres,

WP5 (14 person months): INRA-FERLUS will contribute to improve the knowledge of the feed and environmental values of woody perennials in a mixed crop-dairy system through experiments and indicators assessment in coordination with stakeholders.

WP6 (41 person months): INRA-SYSTEM will improve and make available the Hi-sAFe agroforestry model to allow the analysis of proposed innovations across the participative research and development networks (T6.5). INRA-SYSTEM will collect biophysical data for the model validation and calibration of the model (T6.7). INRA-SYSTEM will model a range of stakeholder-defined managed options for agroforestry practices defined in WP2-WP5 using Hi-sAFe (T6.8). INRA will support ISA in the co-ordination and synthesis of the work within WP6 (T6.9). INRA will provide a representative for the Executive Board and the General Assembly Meetings. INRA-SYSTEM will also ensure the successful co-ordination and delivery of activities within INRA

WP7 (11 person months): INRA SAS/SAD will contribute to the up-scaling research associated with key agroforestry practices in major European geographical regions (T7.2) and the assessment of the ecosystem services (T7.3).

http://www.international.inra.fr/

44


Staff engaged in the project INRA-SYSTEM : Dr Christian Dupraz, Dr Bruno Rapidel, Dr Lydie Dufour; agroforestry, modelling, climate change, reference experiments. Christian Dupraz is a senior researcher in agroforestry, Associated Editor of “Agroforestry Systems”, co-ordinator of the first European FP5 project on agroforestry (SAFE, Silvoarable Agroforestry for Europe, 2001-2005), author of a reference handbook on agroforestry. INRA-DIASCOPE : Dr Dominique Desclaux, Jean-Claude Dusautoir. Genetics of cereals, Crop selection participatory crop selection INRA-FERLUS : Dr Sandra Novak, Dr Jean-Claude Emile, mixed crop-dairy systems, forage crops, agronomical and zootechnical experimentation, agri-environmental assessment. INRA-SAS : Dr Philippe Mérot, Dr Catherine Grimaldi, Dr Valérie Viaud. Soil hydrology, hedges impact on water cycle, bocage, catchment hydrology, landscape modeling, Soil organic matter INRA-SAD : Dr Claudine Thenail, Dr Jacques Baudry, Dr Stéphanie Aviron. Landscape ecology, biodiversity, water quality protection, Ecosystem services, carabid beetles, bees

45




Progressive Farming Trust Ltd t/a The Organic Research Centre

7 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 ORC (Part A docs refer to

PFT Ltd)

SME

Participant URL – www.organicresearchcentre.com

Partner description – The Progressive Farming Trust Ltd trading as Organic Research Centre (ORC – Part A documents refer to PFT Ltd) is the UK’s leading independent research, development institution for organic agriculture and agro-ecology. It aims to develop and support sustainable land-use, agriculture and food systems, primarily within local economies, which build on organic principles to ensure the health and well-being of soil, plant, animal, man and his environment. Our multi-disciplinary and collaborative research covers plant breeding, crop production, bio-diversity and eco-systems services, agroforestry, livestock systems sustainability assessment, climate change, and socio-economics and policy, in many fields using participatory methods and with a strong focus on knowledge dissemination. ORC has been involved with agroforestry research for over 10 years, evaluating an agroforestry approach to balancing productivity with protection of the environment as a truly multi-functional land use. Research has focused on the Wakelyns Agroforestry site in Suffolk, as well as working with a network of agroforestry practitioners across England. This research has been funded by the charity the Ashden Trust (Functional Biodiversity; The Production of Food and Fuel Through Biodiverse Agro-Forestry), EU funding under FP7 (SOLID; CO-FREE) and Interreg 4b (TWECOM), private funders and core funding. In 2010 ORC established the Eco-Agroforestry Network to provide a platform for the development of agroforestry within the UK through research, dissemination and policy change. We use a participatory approach in much of our research and formed the Participatory Research and Demonstration Network in 2011 to put the end user at the heart of our research and advisory work.

Role in the project ORC will facilitate participative research linked to agroforestry systems linked to apple orchards, arable systems (in associated with ABACUS organics), and livestock systems (with FAI farms). ORC will also participate substantially to the policy WP9, with some dissemination activity (WP9). WP3 (6 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with apple orchard systems and

undertake field-work, as informed by the EU FP7 CoFree project. WP4 (12 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with the integration of trees

within arable systems and undertake field-work. WP5 (14 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with the integration of trees

within livestock systems and undertake field-work. ORC will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly

WP6 (3 person months): to support ISA in the identification of agroforestry systems and practices to model (T6.2), and to help collect data for system characterisation (T6.3), market and non-market ecosystem services (T6.4), and management and economic data (T6.7).

WP8 (6 person months): to contribute substantially to the description of recent and current policy measures related to agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3).

WP9 (5 person months): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on developing toolkits that can be used by advisors, (T9.3).

Staff engaged in the project Dr Jo Smith (Senior Agroecology Researcher) focuses on temperate agroforestry systems including silvoarable and silvopastoral systems. She is a WP leader for ICOPP (ERA-NET project), WP leader for TWECOM, deputy WP leader for Co-FREE (FP7) and task leader for SOLID (FP7). Dr Bruce Pearce (Deputy Director) is responsible for the management of ORC's research programme. He has been involved with agroforestry research at ORC for the past 10 years.

http://www.organicresearchcentre.com/

46


Prof. Martin Wolfe (Principal Scientific Advisor) is emeritus professor of plant pathology at ETH Zurich with longstanding involvement in research on bio-diversity and eco-agroforestry. Dr Susanne Padel (Principal Researcher/Team Leader Socio-Economic and Resource Accounting) has research experience in organic sector and market development in UK, Europe organic regulation, standards, values and principles, qualitative social science methods; and planning and business analysis. Prof Dr Nicolas Lampkin (Executive Director) is an agricultural economist with long-standing experience in researching organic farming system and agro-ecology, in particular economics (such as the concept of net systems output) and policy support

47




Short name Type

Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus, Dep. of Soil Protection and Recultivation

8 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 (Leading WP4)

BTU Research

Participant URL: www.tu-cottbus.de

Partner description: The Department of Soil Protection and Recultivation is part of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Process Engineering of the Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus. Ongoing research activities comprise various aspects of land reclamation, initial ecosystem development and new types of land use systems. The scientific work of the 'Multifunctional land use' research team, which is part of this project, aims on agroforestry systems including nutrient cycles, management, biodiversity, microclimate, bioenergy and bioeconomy as well as environmental impact assessment. The research team builds on more than 17 years of agroforestry research on different types of long-term field trials in cooperation with local farmers and other stakeholders and is experienced in the management of national and international R&D projects.

Role in the project: BTU leads WP 4, building on its substantial arable agroforestry work in Germany, close to the Polish border, with a lesser role in WP1, WP3, WP8, and WP9.

WP2 (8 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with silvopastoral systems and undertake field-work.

WP4 (32 person months): BTU will co-ordinate WP4 and will provide synthesis reports of the research every 6 months to the co-ordinator (T4.7). BTU will co-ordinate: the establishment of PRD. networks (T4.1), the characterisation of the systems (T4.2), the identification of innovations to be tested (T4.3), and the experimental (T4.4) and on-farm testing (T4.5) of the innovations, followed by the promotion of guidelines (T4.6). BTU will participate in the Executive Board and send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly


WP8 (2 person months): to contribute to the description of recent and current policy measures related to agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3).

WP9 (2.5 person-months): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on WP4.

Staff engaged in the project: Prof. Dr Dirk Freese, Agriculture Engineer, Agroforestry, agriculture, soil chemistry and land reclamation, including nutrient cycles and modeling aspects Prof. Dr. Reinhard Hüttl, Forester, Head of Department and Vice President of the Helmholtz Association Germany, Agroforestry and land management, GIS and remote sensing (external collaborator) Dr Christian Böhm, Forester, Productivity, interactions and management aspects of agroforestry systems, including microclimatic interactions, biodiversity and bioeconomy. Dr Oliver Dilly, Agricultural Engineer, Interactions between soil and plants in agroforestry systems, biogeochemical cycles of C/N, nutrient use efficiency Ansgar Quinkenstein, MSc, Geoecologist, Management and interactions in agroforestry systems and short rotation coppices, nutrient and C cycle. Penka Tsonkova, MSc, Geographer, Ecosystem services and bioeconomy in agroforestry systems

http://www.tu-cottbus.de/

48


Partner name Partner number Work packages (leading) involved Short name Type

University of Extremadura

9 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 (Leading WP2)

UNEX RTD

Participant URL – www.unex.es/investigacion/grupos/gif

Partner description – The University of Extremadura (UNEX) was funded in 1973. The Forestry school opened in 1999 offers BSc level courses on Forestry engineering. In the research team there are soil scientists, ecologists, forestry engineers, biologists, economists and social scientists. They conduct multidisciplinary research on natural resource management issues and on various biophysical and social aspects of the Mediterranean forest and agroforestry systems, mostly focused on functioning, productivity and sustainability of the Mediterranean agro-silvo-pastoral systems (Iberian dehesa). They have participated in two previous EU FP projects, SAFE and BioBio (www.biobio-indicator.org).

Role in the project – UNEX team leads WP2. WP1 (3 person months): UNEX will support ICRAF in the compilation of agroforestry innovation in areas

bordering Europe (T1.2). WP2 (28 person months): UNEX will co-ordinate WP2 and will provide synthesis reports of the research

every 6 months to the co-ordinator (T2.7). UNEX will co-ordinate the establishment of PRD networks (T2.1), the characterisation of the systems (T2.2), the identification of innovations to be tested (T2.3), and the experimental (T2.4) and on-farm testing (T2.5) of the innovations, followed by the promotion of guidelines (T2.6). UNEX will participate in the Executive Board and send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP3 (8 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with walnut and wild cherry silvopastoral systems in Spain and to undertake field-work.

WP4 (9 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with intercropped walnut plantations and undertake field-work.


WP7 (10 person months): UNEX will lead T7.2 to identify key agroforestry practices to be examined in main European biogeographical regions. UNEX will measure biodiversity and regulating services in selected landscapes (T7.3) and will collaborate in the identification of synergies and trade-offs (T7.5).


WP9 (2.5 person-months): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on WP2. This will include material for the website (T9.1), literature (T9.2) and national workshops (T9.3).

Staff engaged in the project – Gerardo Moreno Marcos PhD in Biology, teaches Soil Science and Forest Planning at Forestry School, University of Extremadura. He is specialized in the functioning of forest and agroforestry systems with a focus on functioning, management and persistence of Iberian dehesas. Fernando Pulido Díaz PhD in Biology, teaches Plant Biology. He specializes in plant reproduction and natural regeneration of extensive silvopastoral systems. Manuel Bertomeu García PhD is a Forestry Engineer, teaches Forest Management. Long research and development experience on timber-based agroforestry. María Lourdes López Díaz. Forestry Engineer PhD. Expert on Agroforestry and pasture management. Juan Carlos Gimenez. Forestry Engineer. Expert on modeling hydrological processes and GIS. Other staff: Dr. Angel Felicísimo, Dr. Aurora Cuartero, Dr. Oscar Santamaría, Dr. Mercedes Bertomeu

http://www.unex.es/investigacion/grupos/gif

http://www.biobio-indicator.org/

49




Short name Type

Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidadte Técnica de Lisboa

10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (Leading WP6)

ISA RTD

Participant URL: www.isa.utl.pt

Partner description: Instituto Superior de Agronomia (ISA) is one of the faculties of the Universidade Técnica da Lisboa (Technical University of Lisbon). Our core business is Higher Education, Research & Development and Technology Transfer mainly in the scientific fields of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources, Food Science and Engineering, Animal Production, Environmental Engineering, Biology and Landscape Architecture. Present scientific work includes 108 Research & Development projects (17 international) and others involving Technology Transfer. We are leader partner in 2 international projects funded by the EU and in 48 national projects. Most of our partners in international projects belong to the EU but we participate in several research networks with other countries, namely Australia, New Zealand, USA, Brazil and Chile. Our experience in Research & Development projects with international teams has more than 20 years and during this period we were project leader of several large and very large teams.

Role in the project: ISA leads WP6 and participate in WP 1-9. WP1 (1 person months): ISA will provide information on agroforestry systems in Portugal. WP2 (10 person months): : to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with high natural and cultural

value agroforestry systems and undertake field-work; to work with WP3 partners to provide data for modelling activities in WP6.

WP3 (8 person months): to work with WP3 partners to provide data for modelling activities in WP6 (T3.2-3.3).

WP4 (3 person months): to work with WP4 partners to provide data for modelling activities in WP6. WP5 (3 person months): to work with WP5 partners to provide data for modelling activities in WP6. WP6 (53.5 person months): ISA will co-ordinate WP6 and will provide synthesis reports of the research

every 6 months to the co-ordinator (T6.9). ISA will develop a pan-European data for climate (T6.1). Working with WP2-WP5, ISA will co-ordinate the identification of agroforestry systems and practices to model (T6.2), the collection of data for system characterisation (T6.3), market and non-market ecosystem services (T6.4), collection of biophysical data for model validation of new components (T6.6) and management and economic data (T6.7). ISA will also co-ordinate the improvement of existing models including tree fruit production and animal interaction and selected ecosystem services (T6.5), and the modelling of management options (T6.8). ISA will participate in the Executive Board and send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP7 (10 person-months): to develop and use the Yield-SAFE and Farm-SAFE models (with CRAN) in the upscaling studies, and to undertake the economic analysis.

WP8 (2 person months): to contribute to the description of recent and current policy measures related to agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3), with a focus on Portugal.

WP9 (8 person-months): to contribute specifically in website development/maintenance and updating. ISA will also participate in the linkage with the stakeholders and integrating modelling tools for the development of web applications to support information and decision by farmers/landowners.

Staff engaged in the project Dr João HN Palma, PhD in Production Ecology and Resource Conservation with expertise in process based modeling, GIS, Environmental modeling, programming in different languages, including web . Dr Joana A Paulo, PhD in Forestry, works in modeling and forest management, with enfaces in Portuguese ‘montado’ stands (cork and tree growth). Dr Margarida Tomé, PhD in Forestry, Expertise in growth and yield modeling and decision support tools. Has been the responsible or participated in the development of most forest models in Portugal. Currently working on integrating traditional growth and yield models with process based models.

http://www.isa.utl.pt/

50


Dr José Tomé, PhD in Forestry, expertise on process based growth and yield models and biometrics Dr Francesco Minunno, PhD in Process-based forest models, expertise with Bayesian methods Joao Freire, PhD in Forestry, expertise in modeling pine production, biometrics and statistics.

51




University of Copenhagen 11

1, 6, 7, 8, 9 (Leading WP7)

UCPH RTD

Participant URL – http://ign.ku.dk/english

Partner description – With over 37,000 students and more than 7,000 employees, the University of Copenhagen is the largest institution of research and education in Denmark. UCPH is ranked as the 7th best European University on the Leiden Ranking list (2011, based on no. publications). Throughout the project the Coordinator will be able to draw on the experience of the EU Office at the University of Copenhagen which has extensive experience in managing both FP6 and FP7 projects. The Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management (IGN) at the UCPH was recently founded in 2013 by the merging of the Danish national centre Forest & Landscape and the Department of Geography & Geology. It has about 450 employees, 2000 students and an annual turnover of about 47 million €. The department is part of “Geocenter Denmark” and “The National Center for Forest, Landscape and Planning”. IGN’s activities include research and development, education, public-sector service, and outreach as well as international development and environ-mental assistance in the fields of geology, geography and geo-informatics, forest, nature and bio-mass, and landscape architecture and planning. Key fields on research that are relevant for HER-CULES include: multifunctional rural landscapes - change and management; peri-urban areas and agricultural developments; collaborative landscape planning and community development. The department regularly leads and participates in large-scale research projects, both at the national and European level, and including participation and leadership in integrated research projects within FP7 (e.g., I-REDD+, RurbanAfrica).

Role in the project – UCPH leads WP7 and participates in WP 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7. WP1 (3 person months): UCPH will provide information on agroforestry systems in Germany, Denmark,

and surrounding countries. UCPH will also participate on the incorporation of agroforestry within existing land cover/land use designations. UCPH will also ensure good links between the stratification in T1.3 with the work in WP7.

WP6 (2 person months): UCPH will liaise with the activities in WP6 to ensure the co-ordination of ecosystem service modelling activities between plot-scale services and those that need to be considered at a landscape-scale.

WP7 (35 person months) UCPH will co-ordinate WP7 and will provide synthesis reports of the research every 6 months to the co-ordinator (T7.7). UCPH will co-ordinate the synthesis of existing knowledge on the outcomes of European agroforestry in terms of biodiversity, ecosystems services and farm profitability (T7.1), and oversee activities T7.2, T7,3, T7.4, and T7.6. UCPH will lead on the identification of synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity, ecosystems services and profitability (T7.5). UCPH will participate in the Executive Board and send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP8 (2 person months): to contribute to the description of recent and current policy measures related to agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3), with a focus on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

WP9 (1 person-month): to contribute delivery of content to website, other outlets, the organisation of one-day workshops, and support in German-language materials.

Staff engaged in the project – Dr. Tobias Plieninger will be Associate Professor in Countryside Planning at the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management as of September 2013. He holds a PhD in forest and environmental sciences and a habilitation in landscape ecology. His research specialises on analysis of cultural landscape change, ecosystem services assessment, agroforestry systems, and human-environment relations.

52




Short name Type

Federal Department of Economic Affairs – Agroscope FDEA-ART

12 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 FDEA-ART Public research

Participant URL – www.agroscope.admin.ch/agrarlandschaft-biodiversitaet/

Partner description – Agroscope FDEA-ART is the Swiss national competence centre for agro-ecology. Agroscope conducts research into environmentally compatible and economically competitive farming by combining ecology, economics and agricultural engineering. Expertise at Agroscope is in agronomy, agricultural technology and economics, plant breeding and genetics, molecular biology, biodiversity and landscape development, and eco-controlling. FDEA-ART evaluates agricultural policies with respect to their environmental and economic impact and is responsible for agri-environmental indicator development, application and communication with a strong focus on biodiversity. FDEA-ART is involved in international research projects, such as GREENVEINS, BIOHAB, EASY, SAFE, TRANSHUMOUNT, BioBio.

Role in the project – FDEA will plays an important role in the landscape-scale WP7, building on its internationally-known biodiversity work, and will facilitate participative research based on agroforestry of high nature and cultural value, and with crop and livestock systems in alpine environments; limited inputs to WP6 and WP9. WP1 (1 person month): FDEA will provide information on agroforestry systems in Switzerland and the

alpine arc. WP3 (6 person months) : to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with (i) intercropped organic

cherry and (ii) Alpine chestnut “selva” and undertake field-work. WP4 (4 person months) : to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with agroforestry and arable

cropping innovations in Switzerland and undertake field-work. WP6 (1 person month): FDEA will liaise with the activities in WP6 to ensure the co-ordination of

modelling activities at a plot-scale and those at a landscape-scale. WP7 (28 person months): FDEA will work closely with UCPH to ensure the successful delivery of WP7.

FDEA will lead task 7.3 to assess the biodiversity and ecosystem services provided by agroforestry systems under different scenarios. FDEA will also lead on the upscaling of the landscape studies to the level of European regions (T7.6). FDEA will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP9 (0.5 person-month): to contribute delivery of content to website, other outlets, the organisation of one-day workshops on mountain agroforestry systems.

Staff engaged in the project – Dr. Felix Herzog, is an agronomist and landscape ecologist. He leads the research group on Agricultural Landscapes and Biodiversity at FDEA-ART (15 staff) and co-ordinated the FP7 BIOBIO project. Dr. Debra Bailey is a landscape ecologist, specialised in landscape mapping and analysis at FDEA-ART. Mareike Jäger manages the Swiss agroforestry network (www.agroforestry.ch) for the Swiss farm extension service Agridea. Kaspar Hunziker leads a project to preserve and describe fruit tree genetic resources in collaboration with the NGO Fructus at FDEA-ACW; PhD student: to be appointed

http://www.agroforestry.ch/

53




Short name Type

Wervel vzw 13 8, 9 WER NGO

Participant URL – www.agroforestry.be

Partner description Werkgroep voor Rechtvaardige en Verantwoorde Landbouw (i.e. the Working Group for Just and Responsible Agriculture) (Wervel vzw) is a non-governmental organisation based in Brussels, Belgium. Wervel aims to promote agriculture that increases economic, ecological, social and cultural value. By the use of networks, campaigns and publications, Wervel moves consumers, farmers and organisations to build such agriculture systems. Wervel has worked on agroforestry on a Flemish level since 2002 and has successfully advocated the implementation of the EU support measure in Flanders. Wervel has promoted agroforestry to diverse groups of stakeholders, including but not limited to the press, farmers, local governments, and academic and educational institutions. At a European level, Wervel participated in policy advocacy initiatives on agroforestry and on European protein production. Wervel is a member organisation of the European Agroforestry Federation and helped to host the first European Agroforestry Conference in Brussels in October 2012.

Role in the project Wervel will use its advocacy skills to contribute to the promotion of agroforestry in W9, working closely with the European Agroforestry Federation. It will report on Belgian policies for WP8. WP8 (1 person month): to contribute to the description of recent and current policy measures

related to agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3), with a focus on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

WP9 (4 person-months): Wervel will contribute delivery of content to the website and other outlets. Wervel will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

Staff engaged in the project Jeroen Watté has a Master's degree in Land & Forest Management, and a Master's in Cultures and Development Studies (development anthropology) from the KULeuven. Jeroen has studied sustainable agriculture independently in India, Zimbabwe and has been working on sustainability issues since 2002, including work on agro-ecology and agroforestry, sustainable protein food chains, and issues of ecological debt. Since 2002 he has been promoting agroforestry, with a focus on communication and networking to mobilize relevant stakeholders, and policy makers.

http://www.agroforestry.be/

54




Short name Type

Aarhus Universitet, (Aarhus University), Department of Agroecology

14 5, 6, 9 (Leading WP5)

AU Research

Participant URL: www.au.dk

Partner description: Department of Agroecology is part of the Faculty of Science and Technology at Aarhus University (AU), holds a scientific staff of 80 plus 70 PhD students covering most aspects of agricultural sciences, and is organised in six research groups of which one ‘ Agricultural systems and Sustainability’ is part of this project. This group is leading with respect to issues related to agriculture and environment, production systems, organic food and farming and participatory approaches. The research group builds on more than 25 years of farming systems research combining participatory on-farm experiments in livestock and crop production with modelling of production, energy use and nutrient flows and studies of farmers’ production logics and decision making processes in relation to economic efficiency, environmental impact and marketing strategies.

Role in the project: AU bring extensive project management experience to WP 5 and substantial experience in participative research related to livestock systems, with focused inputs to WP6 and WP9. WP5 (17 person months): AU will co-ordinate WP5 and will provide synthesis reports of the research

every 6 months to the co-ordinator (T4.7). AU will co-ordinate: the establishment of PRD networks (T5.1), the characterisation of the systems (T5.2), the identification of innovations to be tested (T5.3), and the experimental (T5.4) and on-farm testing (T5.5) of the innovations, followed by the promotion of guidelines (T5.6). AU will participate in the Executive Board and send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.


WP9 (1 person-month): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on WP5.

Staff engaged in the project John E. Hermansen leads the ‘Agricultural systems and sustainability’ group. John’s scientific profile is within agriculture and environment, including life cycle assessment of foods, and organic livestock systems. John has experience in managing projects involving SME’s as well as international team of research partners and is currently WP leader in 2 EU funded project through FP 7 (Agrobiofilm and SOLID). Is presently heading the National project SUMMER and the ERA net project ICOPP that focus on the integration of livestock into land use. Anne Grete Kongsted focuses on effects of managerial, environmental and genetic factors on resource utilization, animal production, animal welfare and meat quality in free-range pig production systems, including systems with integrated pork and energy crop production. Klaus Horsted studies free-range niche production systems. Focus is on genotype x environment effects in relation to animal productivity, meat quality, and assessment of feed intake and feed selection from forage. Have been involved in projects with combined production of poultry and fruit, and pigs in willows. He is WP-leader in ICOPP. Marie T Knudsen is a post doc focusing on life cycle assessment of food with particular reference to soil carbon sequestration and biodiversity aspects.

http://www.au.dk/

55




Agri Food and Biosciences Institute

15 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 AFBI NDPB

Participant URL – www.afbini.gov.uk

Partner description – AFBI is a non-departmental public body which carries out research to underpin the agri-food industries in Northern Ireland. Most funding comes from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development but it also works closely with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, is a partner in many EU and other projects and is linked to Queens University of Belfast. In 1989 AFBI participated in the UK Agroforestry Research Forum’s UK National Silvopastoral experiment with a site on its research station at Loughgall, Co Armagh and an on-farm site. These sites are still available for research purposes. AFBI participated in the EU ALWAYS agroforestry project and in several national and internationally funded research projects. It has also been involved in technology transfer, promoting agroforestry through the local government advisory service and, through participation in an all-island agroforestry group, assisting in establishing demonstration sites in Ireland. The Institute (with almost 800 staff) embraces a wide range of scientific disciplines which can be drawn upon to support its agroforestry research and has a well-equipped field station with access to land, wide-spaced tree plantations and livestock. It has access to two excellent on-farm demonstration sites, one in Northern Ireland and one in Ireland and would hope that participation in the project would provide a knowledge-base through basic research on ecosystem services delivery from these and knowledge transfer to the wider farming and forestry sectors.

Role in the project – Will facilitate participative research related to orchard agroforestry systems (WP3) and agroforestry for livestock systems (WP5), with limited inputs to WP 6, 8 and 9. WP3 (5.5 person months): to work with a stakeholder group associated with apple orchard systems and

undertake field-work. WP5 (8 person months): to co-ordinate a stakeholder group associated with the integration of trees

within livestock systems and undertake field-work. AFBI will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.


WP8 (0.5 person months): to contribute to the description of recent and current policy measures related to agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3).

WP9 (0.5 person months): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on developing toolkits that can be used by advisors, (T9.3).

Staff engaged in the project – Professor Jim McAdam, Head, Crops Grassland and Ecology Branch. Responsible for field Stations, specialist in silvopastoral systems Dr Rodrigo Olave, Senior Scientific Officer, forestry-trained, specialist in greenhouse gas emissions from grass, biomass, forestry and agroforestry stems Research Assistant: to be appointed

http://www.afbini.gov.uk/

56




Short name Type

Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura

16 1, 3, 6, 8, 9 CRA Public research

Participant URL – www.entecra.it

Partner description – The Agricultural Research Council (CRA) is the largest national (Italy) research organization in agriculture. It operates under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture, with general scientific competence within the fields of agriculture, agroindustry, food, fishery and forestry. The CRA gathers together the experience of 28 Agricultural Research Institutes and their 54 peripheral operational units for a total of 82 offices throughout the nation. The distribution of the CRA offices throughout national territory allows it to widely extend its expertise and proficiency, and to closely operate in conjunction with central administrations, local and regional institutions, companies and various trade, industrial and legal associations.

Role in the project – Mostly involved in WP3, with field trial on olive agroforestry (olive intercropped with wild asparagus and other crops), but will contribute to WP1, 6, 8 and 9. WP1 (1 person month): CRA will provide information on agroforestry systems in Italy. WP3 (28 person months): to work with a stakeholder group associated with olive-orchard intercropping

systems. Field measurements will be taken to assess tree-crop interactions and to parameterise Yield-SAFE and Farm-SAFE for olive orchard systems. CRA will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP6 (1 person month): to support ISA in the identification of agroforestry systems and practices to model (T6.2), and to help collect data for system characterisation (T6.3), market and non-market ecosystem services (T6.4), and management and economic data (T6.7).


WP9 (2 person-months): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on WP3.

Staff engaged in the project – Dr. Adolfo Rosati (Senior Researcher), focus on agroforestry, ecophysiology, sustainability. Worked on a Regional project on Olive Agroforestry, funded by the Region of Umbria within measure 1.2.4 of the RDP. Research assistant: to be appointed

http://www.entecra.it/

57


Partner name:

Partner number

Work packages (leading) involved Short name

Type

Louis Bolk Institute, The Netherlands

17 5, 6, 8, 9 LBI Research

Participant URL : www.louisbolk.nl

Partner description: The Louis Bolk Institute (LBI, Netherlands) is an independent scientific research institute offering advisory, research, and development services in the field of organic and sustainable agriculture, nutrition and health care. It operates as a not-for-profit foundation. Its strength lies in its ability to integrate different disciplines, bringing together a broad range of researchers including soil, plant and animal scientists as well as physicians. The Institute operates in the Netherlands and Europe and also has regional offices in Uganda and Ghana. The Institute’s Department of Animal production systems has a strong background in sustainable farming systems development and participatory approaches. Its expertise includes ecosystems services, sustainable soil management, agro-forestry, agro biodiversity, carbon sequestration in different farming systems and animal welfare. The department closely cooperates with other research institutes and universities and with farmers, for example the ‘Duinboeren foundation’ and poultry farmers network ‘Trees for chickens’. The institute is and has been involved in many EU projects: QLIF, Low Input Breeds, CO-FREE.

Role in the project: LBI participates in WP6, 8, and 9, with a substantial role in the stakeholder workgroups and participative research in agroforestry for livestock systems WP5. WP5 (13 person months): to work with stakeholder groups, including the Duiboeren Foundation, focused

on the use of trees in poultry systems and dairy systems. This will include measurements on normal commercial farm using systems exploited by farmers. LBI will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.


WP8 (1 person month): to contribute to the description of recent and current policy measures related to agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3).

WP9 (0.5 person-month): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on WP5.

Persons engaged in the project: Dr Nick van Eekeren (LBI) Senior researcher on soil, plant and animal production-aspects of dairy farming. Coordinator the institute’s research on agro-biodiversity. PhD (2010) on grassland management, soil biota and ecosystem services in sandy soils. One of his current research themes is silvo-pastoral systems. He also coordinates several dairy farm networks. Monique Bestman MSc (LBI) Biologist and animal scientist involved in several Dutch and EU research, demonstration and advisory projects concerning animal welfare in laying hens and also projects about the development of multipurpose ‘plantations’ in poultry outdoor runs and climate neutral poultry farming. Mark Vonk BSc (Duinboeren foundation) Forester and organic fruit farmer. Has been working around the globe as FSC lead auditor, involved in a Dutch willow for biomass research project. As project manager for the Duinboeren foundation coordinating regional landscape and nature management projects. Boki Luske MSc (LBI) Biologist and ecologist, specialized in agro-biodiversity. At the moment involved in different farmer networks which focus on research and demonstration of natural pest management, pollination by bees, fodder trees and multifunctional land use.

http://www.louisbolk.nl/

58


Partner name:

Partner Number

Work packages (leading) involved Short name

Type

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (Italy)

18 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 CNR RTD

Participant URL: www.cnr.it

Partner description: The Italian National research Council (CNR) is the largest public research institution in Italy. The mission is to promote innovation and competitiveness, the internationalization of the national research system, to provide technologies and solutions to emerging needs, to advice Government and other public bodies, and to contribute to the qualification of human resources. CNR is organised in 11 departments and 108 institutes across Italy. Three institutes will participate in the project. The Institute of Agro-environmental and Forest Biology (IBAF) focuses on the interaction between plant species and environment; the Institute for Biometeorology (IBIMET) with the main focus on evaluation of global changes impact on agriculture and forests, and the Institute for Animal Production System in Mediterranean Environment (ISPAAM) focuses on the ecophysiology and management of forage resources within silvopastoral systems

Role in the project: CNR will participate in WP2, WP4, WP6, WP8, and WP9, with a substantial role in the participative research related to the arable and High Nature and cultural value agroforestry systems. WP2 (9 person months): to work with a stakeholder group associated with Mediterranean grazed

woodlands which have high nature value. The sites will be analysed in collaboration with stakeholders to evaluate the ecosystem services including cultural services. CNR will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP4 (6 person months): to work with a stakeholder group associated with the development of agroforestry within mechanised crop systems. CNR will work with the stakeholder group to identify possible innovations, and to collect data on the impact of the innovations.



WP9 (0.5 person-months): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on WP2 and WP4.

Staff engaged in the project Pierluigi Paris, researcher, agroforestry specialist, field experimentation, plant. Andrea Pisanelli, rural sociologist, expertise on participative approach and stakeholder analysis. Francesca Camilli, researcher, territorial development, recovery of multifunctional agro-environmental resources, local knowledge and implementation of local supply chains. Antonello Franca, researcher, eco-physiology of pastures, multifunctionality of silvopastoral systems, grazed woodland management, forest fire prevention Claudio Porqueddu, researcher, sustainable forage crop management and multifunctional cover crops Giovanni Antonio Re, researcher, rangeland management, pasture assessment in silvopastoral areas Federico Sanna, researcher, vegetation analysis and seed bank dynamics in silvopastoral environments Giovanna Seddaiu, researcher, associated to CNR, wooded grasslands, soil carbon sequestration.

http://www.cnr.it/

59




Short name Type

Nyugat-magyarországi Egyetem Kooperációs Kutató Központ Nonprofit Kft.

19 2, 4, 8, 9 NYME

Non-profit

organization

Participant URL – kkk.nyme.hu

Partner description – The Cooperation Research Centre for Environmental Resources Management and Protection (Nyugat-magyarországi Egyetem Kooperációs Kutató Központ Nonprofit Kft.) was founded by and as an economical organizational unit of the University of West Hungary in 2005. The research activities are carrying out on three different fields: I. Improvement of the method and the practical application of Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, II. Development of waste treatment technologies, an III. Eco-Energetics in cooperation among the University’s three faculties and its 20 industrial partners. The laboratories and professional know-how of the several university institutes of University of West Hungary are available as a background for research activities of the Co-operational Research Center.

Role in the project – NyME KKK will undertake field measurements related to newly established Paulownia intercropping systems in Hungary in WP4. In cooperation with partner institutions NyME KKK will provide access to experiments related to silvopastoral systems of high natural and cultural value. WP2 (9 person months): to work with a stakeholder group associated with systems of high nature and

cultural values. The sites will be analysed in collaboration with stakeholders to evaluate the ecosystem services including cultural services. NYME will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP4 (9 person months): to work with a stakeholder group associated with the development of agroforestry with arable systems. NYME will work with the stakeholder group to identify possible innovations, and to collect data on the impact of the innovations.



Staff engaged in the project – Prof Dr Béla Marosvölgyi. Expertise in bioenergy research in Hungary Dr Andrea Vityi. Expertise in agroforestry research.

60


Partner name Partner number Work packages (leading) involved

Short name

Type

Universitatea Babes-Bolyai

20 2, 7, 8, 9 UBB Research

Participant URL –http://www.ubbcluj.ro/en/

Partner description – Babes Balyai University has the longest academic history of any university in Romania. It is situated in Cluj Napoca near the hills, mountains and plains of Transylvania in North West Romania. The Department of Ecology and Taxonomy is within the Faculty of Biology and Geology. The Department has expertise in the areas of terrestrial and aquatic ecology, with an increasing focus on land use change and interdisciplinary landscape ecology. Specific areas of interest include the dispersal of species within spatially and temporally heterogeneous landscapes. It has experience in previous FP6 projects such as ALARM (Assessing Large-scale risks for Biodiversity using Tested Methods) and GLORIA. Within this project, Babes Bolyai will work with local farmer groups and NGOs (such as ADEPT) to promote the development of appropriate agroforestry systems. The team has expertise in biodiversity conservation, ecology and physiology, environmental monitoring, impact assessment and rural development.

Role in the project –

WP2 (9 person months): Case study under WP2, in the Tarnava Mare area of South East Transylvania,

approximately 85,000 ha with a large number of wood pastures. UBB will work with a stakeholder group associated with systems of high nature and cultural value. This will include the identification of the current biological and socio-economic threats and constraints to the survival of HNCV systems, to implement and monitor innovative proposals at selected demonstration sites, and to evaluate the impact. UBB will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly.

WP7 (10 person-months): to support UCPH in WP7 with a particular focus on the synthesis of existing knowledge on the outcomes of European Agroforestry Systems (T7.1), supporting the identification and characterisation of sample landscapes (T7.2), and assessing ecosystems services (T7.3).



Staff engaged in the project – Professor, Dr. Laszlo Rakosy - Head of Department, Ecology, Invertebrate Zoology Razvan Popa, Degree in Ecology, specialist in agri-environment and land use. Tibor Hartel, PhD in ecology Nat Page, Degree in Zoology, specialist in agri-environment policy. Cristi Malos, PhD in Geography, GIS and mapping specialist. Ben Mehedin, Degree in Chemistry, specialist in farmer relations in Tarnava Mare area. John Akeroyd, PhD in Botany.

61




Short name

Type

Veneto Agricoltura (Division of Research and Agroforestry Management)

21 4, 5, 9 VEN Research

Participant URL: www.venetoagricoltura.org

Partner description: Veneto Agricoltura is the regional agency for agriculture, forestry and agri-food sectors since 1999. The Division of Research and Agroforestry management comprises more than 40 people (researchers and technicians), plus specialized workers across four experimental farms and four centres (horticulture-flowers, grape-wine, fruits plants and forestry trees nursery). Main projects and experimental activities include most aspects of agricultural and forestry sciences, with special attention to low input and sustainable production system (including organic), biodiversity conservation, alternative energy production and use at farm lever and forestry management in the plane and mountain areas. A participatory approach to projects activities is frequently used including local farmers and associations and SME. On field visits, training courses as well workshops and technical leaflets are used to disseminate results between stakeholders at regional and national level.

Role in the project: VEN will participate in the participatory research associated with arable (WP4) and livestock systems (WP5). WP4 (2 person months): to work with a stakeholder group associated with systems of high nature and

cultural values. WP5 (9 person-months): to work with stakeholders interested in livestock (mainly pig) agroforestry

systems. VEN will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly. WP9 (0.5 person-month): to contribute to the dissemination of the research with a focus on WP5

Staff engaged in the project Giustino Mezzalira leads the ‘Research and Agroforestry Management Division. He has 30 years practical experience in agroforestry systems with special focus on timber production in linear systems (hedges, shelterbelts, buffer strips). Recent studies focusing on water cycle in intensive agriculture systems, livestock effluents use, and alternative energy production in farming. Valerio Bondesan, animal scientist studying interaction between production system and products quality (meat and traditional processed products in pig, beef, milk, eggs), with focus on organic free range pigs. He has coordinated projects for biodiversity conservation of local breeds (sheep, cow and poultry) and assessment quality traits of their products.

http://www.venetoagricoltura.org/

62




Short name

Type

AGROOF 22

5, 9 (Leading WP9)

AGROOF

Participant URL – www.agroof.net

Partner description Created in 2000, AGROOF is a worker cooperative, specializing in agroforestry development. AGROOF develops activities linking research to the field: research development, training, implementation of projects, audiovisual production. AGROOF was a partner of the SAFE Project.

Role in the project – WP6 (5 person-months): AGROOF will participate to the creation of a new module (breeding system) for

the Farm-Safe model. Agroof will test and realise some economical and technical simulations in collaboration with Cranfield Institute and Lisboa University.

WP9 (18 person-months). AGROOF is responsible for the co-ordination and synthesis of WP9 (T9.7). AGROOF will be in charge of the realisation of the interactive platform and of the different communication and training tools during the project.

Staff engaged in the project – Fabien Liagre: leads projects management activity; Nicolas Giardin: is responsible of the communication and audiovisual; Camille Béral: Engineer specialized in agroforestry, has in charge the research activity; Daniele Orihas: project management and training courses for student and end-users.



Short name Type

APCA 23

3, 4, 9

APCA

Participant URL – www.chambres-agriculture.fr

Partner description The Assemblée Permanente des Chambres d'Agriculture (APCA) are the French chambers of agriculture. They have been implied in agroforestry development for more than 20 years. APCA coordinates a network of advisors that work on forest, trees and wood, and a network with Chambers from mountain areas that work on pastoralism.

Role in the project – WP3 (3 person-months): Identification of stakeholders; managing, implementation, follow up and analysis

of experimentations for Agro-forestry systems (methodology & protocols); managing of working groups within targeted plots.

WP4 (6 person-months). Identifying and developing a participative network with key stakeholders; Identifying key innovations with the stakeholders; contributing to provide data; contributing to an economic assessment.

WP9 (1 person-month). Participation in dissemination activities in the field and through several media.

Staff engaged in the project – Christelle Angeniol: in charge of agroforestry, forest & wood for French Chambers of Agriculture.

http://www.agroof.net/

http://www.chambres-agriculture.fr/

63




Short name

Type

Association Française d’AgroForesterie

24 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 AFAF

Participant URL – www.agroforesterie.fr

Partner description The Association Française d’AgroForesterie (AFAF) is the French association for Agroforestry. It was created in 2007 and it works with farmers in order to enhance agroforestry systems

Role in the project – WP1 (2 person-months). AFAF will contribute to WP1 through an inventory of existing agroforestry

areas in France, and previous work of AFAF with IGN and Cesbio to integrate a typology of agroforestry systems into cartographic models. Analysis of push-and-pull factors about agroforestry in France (environmental and socioeconomic factors)

WP3 (3.5 person-months). Contribution to the development of common methodology for the diagnosis of wood resource on agroforestry plots and participation to the diagnosis on field

WP4 (3.5 person-months). Contribution to the development of common methodology for the diagnosis of wood resource on agroforestry plots and participation to the diagnosis on field

WP8 (5 person-months). Analysis and synthesis of policy framework and support to agroforestry in France (linked to the systems studied from WP2 to WP5). Review of the analysis report about success of policies about agroforestry in Europe (for French part)

WP9 (3 person-months). Realisation of brochures: - technical guideline for management of agroforestry systems - European regulation: analysis of existing framework, constraints and perspectives.

Staff engaged in the project – Alain Canet: President of the association Séverin Lavoyer: Vice-president of the association Yasmine Evieux : employee and works on research projects

http://www.agroforesterie.fr/

64




Short name Type

World Agroforestry Centre 25 1, 6, 7, 8 ICRAF International Organisation

Participant URL – www.worldagroforestry.org

Partner description – The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) is part of the alliance of the CGIAR centres. The Centre is guided by the broad development challenges pursued by the CGIAR. These include poverty alleviation, enhanced food security and health, improved productivity with lower environmental and social costs, and resilience in the face of climate change and other external shocks. The Centre's mission is to generate science-based knowledge about the diverse roles that trees play in agricultural landscapes, and use its research to advance policies and practices that benefit the poor and the environment. The Centre has generated important knowledge and technology in the form of international public goods thus enhancing the evolution of policy and institutional innovations. It has done this by expanding knowledge on the multifunctional roles of tree-based systems and addressing challenges and opportunities across ecosystems to leverage benefits for smallholders. It is uniquely positioned to address global challenges. Role in the project –specific contribution to WP1 in reporting on agroforestry innovations outside of the EU which could be pertinent to the EU and land classification systems, and advisory inputs to WP6, WP7, and WP8 regarding current best international practice. WP1 (6 person months). ICRAF will work with UNEX to produce a report on possible agroforestry

innovations/options that could be transferred from Mediterranean Partner countries to European Countries (T1.2). ICRAF will also collaborate with EFI to identify how agroforestry can be located and quantified within existing EU land use classifications and surveys (T1.1). ICRAF will send a staff member to the initial General Assembly.

WP6 (2 person months): ICRAF will work with ISA, CRAN, and INRA to identify improvements in the use of agroforestry models.

WP7 (1 person month): ICRAF will work with UCPH and FDEA to identify improvement in the use of upscaling models for agroforestry.


Staff engaged in the project – Dr Fergus Sinclair is ICRAF’s Science Domain Leader on Agroforestry Systems. He has >70 international publications on agroforestry and >2000 cites and an h-index of >25 (google scholar). He has worked for over 25 years on agroforestry research and development in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. He holds positions at Bangor University in the UK and at CATIE in Costa Rica. His expertise includes classification of agroforestry practices, local knowledge and modelling agroforestry systems from field to landscape scales. His most recent research revolves around development of negotiation support tools to manage synergies and trade-offs amongst impacts of farm trees on multiple ecosystem services. Dr Meine van Noordwijk is ICRAF’s Chief Science Adviser and Science Domain Leader for Environmental Services. He has more than two hundred peer reviewed scientific publications on agroforestry with >10 000 cites and an h-index of 49. He has worked across scales from plot to international policy domains in a career spanning four decades and shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with other IPCC members. He is active in policy domains surrounding REDD+, forest definition and Payments for Environmental Services. Dr Eike Ludeling is a climate change scientist at ICRAF who has also worked on impacts of climate change on fruit trees in Mediterranean climates. He currently works on climate analogs. Dr Delia Catacutan is a socio-economist and policy specialist, who now heads up the ICRAF office in Vietnam. She was ICRAF co-ordinator for the EU Afromaison project that included sites in N. Africa

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/

65




Short name Type

European Agroforestry Federation 26 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 EURAF NGO

Participant URL – www.agroforestry.eu

Partner description The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) aims at promoting the use of trees on farms (silvoarable and silvopastoral) throughout Europe. EURAF is a non-governmental organisation that unites eight national agroforestry associations throughout Europe and more than 250 individual members from 18 different European countries. EURAF was founded on December 16th, 2011 at the first European Agroforestry Meeting in Paris, and has been focusing on policy work in 2012, promoting agroforestry uptake in the new Common Agricultural Policy, and informing European decision makers (European Commission, European Parliament, National Governments). In October 2012 EURAF organised the first European Agroforestry Conference in Brussels.

Role in the project EURAF will participate to WP1-5, WP8 and WP9. EURAF will extend the AGFORWARD influence to European countries with no participants in the AGFORWARD consortium. The consolidation of EURAF as a transnational European body aiming at promoting agroforestry systems across Europe is an objective of AGFORWARD. It will allow the AGFORWARD achievements to be valued in all European countries (including countries with no AGFORWARD participants) and after the AGFORWARD project is finished. WP1 (3 person months). EURAF will provide data for the online map and associated database system

of extant agroforestry systems in all European countries. WP2 (2 person months). EURAF will organize interactions with stakeholders operating in additional

countries where no partners are directly working in AGFORWARD. WP3 (2 person months). EURAF will organize interactions with stakeholders operating in additional



countries where no partners are directly working in AGFORWARD. WP8 (12 person months): EURAF will describe the recent and current policy measures related to

agroforestry (T8.1), and the analysis of the success of agroforestry-related policies leading to recommendations (T8.3). In particular it will build a database of agroforestry experts, collect national legislations concerning agroforestry systems, and prepare a mid-term review of agroforestry in CAP 2014-2020 by 2017

WP9 (12 person months): EURAF will send a staff member to the Annual General Assembly. EURAF will play a key role in the dissemination of information both to countries not represented within the consortium, but also to the general public. Some key actions include : organizing two European Agroforestry conferences (in 2014 and in 2016); develop an internet forum; build an online agenda with demonstration events throughout Europe; disseminate results to countries with little or no EURAF presence (like Poland, Norway, Finland, Austria, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Balkans countries). EURAF will help the constitution of national AF organisations in European countries such as Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, the Czech republic, Ireland. EURAF will participate in the major Agriculture and forestry Fairs around Europe to promote agroforestry practices and inform stakeholders. EURAF will organize a European agroforestry festival mixing both technical issues, promotion of AF products and leisure activities (including open air concerts). This will be organized in 2015, the year in-between the annual European Conferences of 2014 and 2016. The festival will be organized in a typical agroforestry environment. EURAF will establish worldwide linkages with partner organizations (e.g., AFTA, the North-American Agroforestry Association).

http://www.agroforestry.eu/

66


Staff engaged in the project : The 21 members of the EURAF Executive Committee (based in 17 European countries); Jabier Ruiz Mirazo, EURAF delegate in Brussels. Currently EURAF is not staffed and all work is done on a voluntary basis. The AGFORWARD project will enable EURAF to be staffed. A 3 year permanent position is considered.

67


2.3 Consortium as a whole The consortium has been constituted to bring together partners with different capacities, from different agro-climatic regions, and with experience of a range of existing international research.

2.3.1 Capacities within the consortium The different capacities brought together by the consortium include partners with excellent experience in agroforestry science (encompassing crops, livestock, trees and the environment) and access to the best agroforestry experiments in Europe. The consortium also includes participants with experience in participative research approaches and extension and diffusion activities; bio-economic and environmental evaluation; communication and promotion, and engagement with national and international agroforestry stakeholders. These are briefly outlined in turn.

1) Partners with excellent experience in agroforestry science Almost all of the participants in the project have substantial experience in the area of agroforestry science and experimentation (Tables 2.3a-2.3b). This includes both silvoarable (crops + trees), silvopastoral (trees + livestock), and agrosilvopastoral systems (crops + trees + livestock). For example, the team from Aarhus University provide research excellence in the area of sustainable livestock management, ranging from pigs, poultry and other livestock systems. UNEX has extensive research experience on Iberian dehesas management over a long period of time that encompasses the role of free-range livestock in the sustainable management of this delicate and important system. CNR and EFI also have extensive experience on the consequence of livestock management on the dynamics of extensive wood pastures, and USC for management of new wood plantations. Table 2.3a Examples of partners with experience in agroforestry science and experimentation

Participant Examples of experience

1 CRAN Experience of and data from the UK silvoarable network of three sites (1992-2012). The 20 year data set represents one of the most detailed for agroforestry.

4 USC Over 50 agroforestry experiments, some extending over 17 years, including animal management systems and stocking rates (dairy cows, horses, pigs), soil management (fertilization and lime) forage production (pasture, maize, ray, wheat, oat) and sowing (with and without shading) and forest species (different coniferous and broadleaves at different densities and in different types of soils).

5 TEI Data from traditional silvoarable systems (2001-2005), Data from silvopastoral systems (1998-2012), Data from Silvoarable trial (2003-2012).

6 INRA The historical experimental sites at Restinclières and Vézénobres (first LERs of agroforestry systems to be experimentally measured from tree plantation to tree harvest). A network of on-farm AF demonstration sites (including silvopastoral sites in Languedoc-Roussillon) monitored occasionally since 1989. Databases on silvoarable productivity and biodiversity (1995-2012). Facilities for selection of crop varieties adapted to shade. Facilities for agroforestry dairy cows systems appraisal.

7. ORC Experimental field site with six different alley cropping systems and earlier data (Wakelyns Agroforestry). Second field site with willow and alder. Data available on biodiversity, productivity (2011 – on-going). Access to additional site with replicated silvo-pastoral semi-commercial system. Whitehall farm silvoarable system. Slit farm design. Commercial apple production. Environmental and production data.

8. BTU Network of long term experimental sites of silvoarable systems (alley cropping, 1995-2012) covering different edaphic and climatic site conditions in Germany. Databases of carbon, nutrients, water, biodiversity and effectiveness of silvoarable systems, and tree and crop management and economics. Development of strategies for bioenergy conversion on local scale, and windbreak management of windbreaks.

68


Table 2.3b Examples of partners with experience in agroforestry experimentation (continued)


9. UNEX Experimental field sites with different management practices in Iberian dehesas, concerning tree regeneration, tree-shrub-grass interactions, soil resources dynamic and use, tree nutritional status and physiological functioning, pasture and tree production, rooting systems and above- and below-ground carbon. Data for several years for each referred parameters. A recent experiment in mature high quality timber plantations (the biggest Spanish company on high quality wood production; www.bosques naturals.es) to assess the economic and environmental consequences of change from intensive, high-input plantations to low-input silvopastoral systems.

10 ISA Tree growth, cork growth and crop corn production datasets. The number of measurements varies according to the trial: 1997-2011 and 2003-2012 for cork oak trials and 2004-2011 for pine nut.

14 AU Experimental field site with well-established willow trees and data from experiment with free-range growing-finishing pigs in willow. Data from experiment with free-range broilers in orchards.

15 AFBI AFBI has been involved in silvopastoral research since 1989. It participated (with 2 experimental sites) in the UK National Network Silvopastoral Experiment. It has a dedicated research farm (Agroforestry Unit) at its Horticultural and Plant Breeding Station with mature and semi-mature experimental agroforestry stands; holds a bank of data on silvopastoral systems in the UK.

16 CRA Experimental field site with olive agroforestry. Previous project on Olive-Crops-Animals (experience + data).

17 LBI Commercially managed experimental/demonstrations sites with willow-goat trial, willow-cow trial, mixed inland trees and cows/goat trial, willow-chicken trial, fruit-chicken trial.

18 CNR Data from silvoarable experimental sites (1992-2010) and silvopastoral systems (2007-2012). Experimental field sites with walnut silvoarable systems and Quercus pubescens silvopastoral system. Socio economic investigations.

19 NYME Data of landuse, vegetation history of silvopastoral management system. Detailed data of tree stand structure of 4 sites. Further data on naturalness of all Hungarian wood-pasture, and cultural value and stakeholder perceptions of silvopastoral systems. Experimental field site of reused wood-pasture. Results of yield measurements on established tree plantations of newly-bred tree species developed independently and applied in new agroforestry experimental site. Results of soil measurements using N-fixing bacteria-mix.

20 UBB 10 years experience in studies of extensive agricultural systems in Transylvania, Romania including silvopastoral systems. This includes agricultural extension services, farmer and farm management surveys collecting and examining production and socio-economic data, high-definition GIS mapping and database creation. Also brining experience in marketing of local products linked to High Nature Value farming systems, and design and application of agri-environment schemes.

21 VENETO Data of increasing biodiversity and vegetation growth from experimental linear and field sites: hedges for vineyard natural protection (1994), windbreaks (1996-2008) and alley cropping with several woody species for timber production (Quercus, Juglans, Populus, Tilia, Fraxinus, Acer, Carya) planted in 2012. Experimental field site with poplar-willow trees and data from free-range organic pigs.

69


The AGFORWARD consortium also has unique and exclusive access to a range of experimental and farm-based agroforestry sites. They include the most important agroforestry research plots in Europe (some over 20 years old), and are a critical resource for the success of any agroforestry promotion activity, as they provide the data to validate models (Figure 2.6) and enable us to understand the long-term interactions between different components and processes of agroforestry systems.

2) Partners with excellent experience in participative research approaches The consortium also has an established track record in undertaking successful participative research across a range of subjects and producer types. Much of the research has been completed in relation to agroforestry systems, and many have experience in participative research related to ecosystem service assessment (Table 2.4a and 2.4b).

Table 2.4a Examples of AGFORWARD participants’ experience in participative research


1 CRAN Leader of numerous participative research projects in the UK with particular focus on payment for ecosystem services, including two new UK Research Council funded projects on “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability”, and wider research on the ecosystem service framework in relation to trees (Agbenyega et al. 2009)

3 ACTA ACTA group members have been involved in agroforestry development for more than 20 years which has demonstrated direct benefit for farmers.

4 USC Collaboration with autochthonous animal breed associations and labelled products and a network of seven demonstration plots developed with farmers.

7 ORC Has coordinated UK funded projects developing participatory approaches with producers and leads a WP in FP7 project SOLID utilising participatory approaches. Strong connections with particularly organic producers but also low input and other agroecological farmers. Developed a commercial silvopoultry system with UK producer and undertook establishment assessments and analysis. Co-ordinates a Participatory Research Network with agroecological producers on “eco-agroforestry”.

9 UNEX Strong connections with farmers, farmer associations and other stakeholders (public-bodies, tourism operators, manufacturers) that operate in Iberian dehesas and with their products. UNEX have work in collaboration with two local stakeholder groups, included 30 farm owners, along FP7 project BioBio.

10 ISA Stakeholder tool; Collaboration with UNAC - União da Floresta Mediterrânica (www.unac.pt), AFPC – forest owners association of Coruche (www.apfc.pt) and ACHAR – forest owners association of Chamusca (www.achar.pt/);

12 FDEA Network of farmers, farm advisors, foresters and researchers of “IG Agroforst” (www.agroforst.ch / www.agroforesterie.ch) who promote agroforestry. Low-input agroforestry monitoring network on innovation plots by pioneer farmers.

14 AU Network to farmers with free-range sows in willow. Network with a group of farmers producing gourmet pork based on integration of pigs in orchard and/or hedges.

16 CRA Connections to Italian farmers and other stakeholders with agroforestry projects/activities/interest.

17 LBI Coordination of two farmers network on ‘Fodder trees’ (www.voederbomen.nl) and ‘Trees for chickens’ (www.bomenvoorbuitenkippen.nl). Collaboration with Duinboeren Foundation (regional landscape and nature projects done by and for farmers in the ‘Dune Area’); www.duinboeren.nl. Collaboration with Adopteer een kip (promotion of organic poultry farming with well-designed outdoor runs among consumers and farmers); www.adopteereenkipl.nl

20 UBB Staff at UBB have been working since 2002 with farmers, local communities, universities, other NGOs, and government at all levels to solve problems threatening

http://www.unac.pt/

http://www.achar.pt/

http://www.voederbomen.nl/

http://www.bomenvoorbuitenkippen.nl/

http://www.duinboeren.nl/

http://www.adopteereenkipl.nl/

70


Transylvania HNCV landscapes (Romania) and the small-scale farming communities.

21 VENETO Linkage with a group organic farmers producing traditional pork for salami. Collaboration with farmers, farmers association, and research institutions at national level in Italy.

23 APCA APCA coordinates a network of advisors who work on forest, trees and wood, and who give direct support to farmers who want to develop agroforestry systems. They offer personalized and technical (or even legal) support on the spot enabling farmers to achieve better coordination.

3) Partners with excellent experience in agroforestry bio-economic modelling and life cycle assessments

Members of the consortium have developed or have experience of using the key bio-economic and environmental models which are able to operate across the forest-agroforestry-agriculture continuum (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5 Examples of some of the AGFORWARD participants’ experience in agroforestry bio-economic modelling, life cycle assessment, and modelling of ecosystem services and biodiversity.


1 CRAN CRAN was a key developer of the YIELD-SAFE model for biophysical modelling of agroforestry (van der Werf et al. 2007), and the Plot-SAFE and FARM-SAFE models for bio-economic modelling of agroforestry systems (Graves et al. 2007). The team from Cranfield University include staff with international research experience in calculating the environmental costs and benefits of land use systems (Williams et al. 2010; Leinonen et al. 2012; Graves et al. 2011b).

6 INRA INRA have developed unique biophysical dynamic models of agroforestry systems (Hi-sAFe for silvoarable models, TNT for hedges).

9 UNEX Experience on economic assessment of forest products and management practices based on multicriteria models (Bertomeu et al 2009; Díaz-Balteiro et al 2009; Giménez et al 2013)

10 ISA ISA has substantial experience in using the bio-economic Yield-SAFE and FARM-SAFE models to describe the yield, economic and environmental models of agroforestry systems across different climatic regions of Europe. It has also developed the SUBER growth and yield model for carbon and biomass assessment (Paulo 2011)

12 FDEA FDEA has experience of using bio-economic models to evaluate the viability and profitability of agroforestry at a landscape scale in Europe. It also has experience of using the InVESt (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade offs) model developed in North America.

25 ICRAF ICRAF has developed a number of models in relation to the design and evaluation of agroforestry practices, which will be evaluated for use in the AGFORWARD project. For example the rapid-assessment landscape tools developed for the TUL-SEA project (World Agroforestry Centre, 2012)

71


4) Partners with excellent experience in communication and promotion All partners, as part of their daily work, have experience in communication and promotion of their work and the knowledge and innovations that it generates. Those who are engaged with participatory research approaches will have particular skills in these areas embedded in their work. However, there are additional skills and experiences held by AGFORWARD partners (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6 Examples of partners with excellent experience in communication and promotion


2 EFI EFI has developed platforms allowing improved benefit from knowledge and know-how across Europe with efficient access to social, economic and environmental expertise covering all of Europe’s biogeographical regions.

3 ACTA ACTA comprises a federation of 15 technical agricultural institutes (ITA). It is directed by and works closely with and for farmers. ACTA partners include producers, farmers, advisors, and trainers who communicate and promote agroforestry and its development.

4 USC Strong experience of working with and informing policy makers at a national and EU level.

7 ORC Has worked closely with farmers and producers for over 30 years via research and the Organic Advisory Service. The Institute of Organic Training and Advice (IOTA; www.organicadvice.org.uk ) has recently merged with ORC and is a professional body for trainers, advisers and other extension workers involved in organic food and farming allowing easy access to on the ground advisors and trainer. Experience working with UK government and agroforestry and forestry partners in policy development.

12 FDEA-ART

FDEA-ART evaluates agricultural policies with respect to their environmental and economic impact and is responsible for agri-environmental indicator development, application and communication with a strong focus on biodiversity.

13 WERV A non-governmental organisation based in Brussels, Belgium. Wervel aims to promote agriculture that increases economic, ecological, social and cultural value. By the use of networks, campaigns and publications, Wervel motivates consumers, farmers and organisations to build such agriculture systems.

15 AFBI Has experience of providing advice providing advice and promotion of information to both public and private bodies including farmers and agri-food companies.

16 CRA The distribution of the CRA offices throughout Italy allows it to widely extend its expertise and proficiency, and to closely operate in conjunction with central administrations, local and regional institutions, companies and various trade, industrial and legal associations.

26 EURAF A new international organisation that will be critical in promotion of knowledge and innovations generated by AGFORWARD. EURAF will organize two European Agroforestry conferences (in 2014 and in 2016); develop an internet forum; build an online agenda with demonstration events throughout Europe; disseminate results to countries with little or no EURAF presence (like Poland, Norway, Finland, Austria, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Balkans countries).

5) Partners with excellent engagement with national and international agroforestry stakeholders

The AGFORWARD consortium has brought together partners that allow the project to work with established networks of agroforestry research, development, extension and promotion in Europe

72


(Table 2.7). The consortium also has excellent links with a range of businesses associated with agroforestry. The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), with its headquarters in Kenya, and with regional offices in Belgium and S.E. Asia, has international experience outside of Europe, in expanding knowledge on the multifunctional roles of trees and tree-based systems outside of the EU. In those areas it has sought to establish and promote the economic, social and environmental benefits of agroforestry science and practice, with a particular focus on poverty alleviation. It is also able to bring experience in participative research methods. Their experience of systems outside of the EU will bring greater understanding of potential issues (both positive and negative) to AGFORWARD.

Table 2.7 Examples of partners with excellent relations with national and pan-European agroforestry networks

Participant Examples of networks

1 CRAN Secretariat for the Farm Woodland Forum; an interest group based in the UK of 200 European members with an interest in best practice with trees on farms (www.agroforestry.ac.uk)

2 EFI Close collaboration with National Association of Swedish Sami

5 TEI Collaboration with the Hellenic Agroforestry Network (www.agroforestry.gr)

8 BTU Strong collaboration with national farmer network and stakeholders.

9. UNEX Strong connections with Spanish National Association of Silviculture. Host of a public portal for promotion of Sustainable Management of Iberian Dehesas (www.Accionporladehesa.com)

10 ISA Contact list for dissemination on public and private entities related to the agroforestry sector in Portugal.

13 WER Network to nearly 600 interested stakeholders (farmers, extension agents, administrations) in Belgium. Office in Brussels near European institutions.

18 CNR Collaboration in Italy with: i) SiSEF (National Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology) and EFS (Regional Forestry Office of Sardinia); ii) a national technical Journal for agricultural stakeholders; iii) agro-forestry stakeholders.

19 NYME Connections to the relevant national stakeholders in Hungary.

26 EURAF A network of contacts in 18 European countries including seven countries with no participants in AGFORWARD. Strong links at the European Commission to promote agroforestry. Direct links to many national governments to lobby for agroforestry.

http://www.agroforestry.gr/

http://www.accionporladehesa.com/

73


2.3.2 Geography of the consortium ii) The second criterion in the composition of the consortium was the availability of field experimental sites that cover the major biogeographical regions of Europe. The partners cover the main agro-climatic zones across Europe (Fig 2.2). Areas not directly covered by the participants of the consortium, will be covered through the inclusion of the European Forest Institute and the European Agroforestry Federation.

Fig 2.2 The AGFORWARD participants are able to cover the major agro-climatic zones across Europe

(Metzger et al., 2005). The numbers are the participant numbers.

2.3.3 Experience of a range of existing international research initiatives Thirdly the Consortium brings together experience from other EU FP5, FP6 and FP7 projects and networks related to agroforestry, as outlined in the individual partner descriptions. This includes experience in ALWAYS (e.g. AFBI) which was an early EU project focused on silvopastoral systems. As

74


indicated in Section 1, AGFORWARD includes the Co-ordinator of the FP5 Silvoarable Agroforestry For Europe Project, which was led by Dr Dupraz from INRA. Other members of that team included CRAN, ISA, FDEA, CNR, ACTA, and UNEX. The consortium also includes the Co-ordinator (Dr F. Herzog) of the FP7 Biodiversity Indicators for Organic and Low-input Farming Systems (BioBio) project (2009-2012), which involved FDEA and UNEX. Felix Herzog is also involved with the FP7 project “Towards land management of tomorrow – Innovative forms of mixed farming for optimized use of energy and nutrients” (2012-2015), and the FP7 project called “Quantification of ecological services for sustainable agriculture” (2013-2016). The European Forest Institute and ICRAF have involvement in a substantial number of projects related to tree, woodland and forest management. The consortium also involves a number of SMEs and NGOs involved in the organic sector. ORC is currently involved in the Sustainable Organic and Low-Input Dairying (SOLID) (FP7) project (2011-2015) which includes silvopastoral trials of SRC bioenergy production and livestock. ORC is also involved in the Co-Free (FP7) project (2012-2014) which includes silvoarable systems as an approach to reducing copper use in organic top fruit production. TEI is undertaking a national research project on “Valonia Oak Silvopastoral Systems” funded 75% from the E.U. and 25% by the Hellenic Republic. UNEX is involved in the COST action project: “Fraxinus dieback in Europe: elaborating guidelines and strategies for sustainable management (FRAXBACK)” (2011-2013), and a COST Action entitled “European mixed forests. Integrating Scientific Knowledge in Sustainable Forest Management. (EuMIXFOR)”. CRAN has recently undertook the economic appraisal in a UK-funded study on agroforestry abatement options for ammonia emissions (Bealey et al. 2012).

2.3.4 Sub-contracting Within the project, sub-contracting budgets are included for three partners: CRAN, ACTA, ISA, and AGROOF. In each case, the subcontracts will be established in compliance of Article II.7.2 of the Grant Agreement.

CRAN Task in WP10: Attestation of financial statements and auditing as required by EC Justification: Use of External Auditor Estimated cost: 13,500 Euros

ACTA Task in WP10: Financial Certificates for Financial Management Justification: Use of External Auditor. ACTA will also liaise on the budgets of IDELE and IDF Estimated cost: 1,500 Euros Task in WP3: Access and technical analysis for a pre-verger experimental plot, which will be used for the assessment of grass, meat, and fruit tree production and economic assessment Justification: ACTA does not have access to such a site within the organisation Estimated cost: 10,200 Euros Task in WP5: Access and technical analysis for two specific plots focused on ruminant agroforestry systems, which will be used for technical and economic assessment. Although the work focussed on these sites in WP5 will be undertaken by ACTA third-party IDELE, the subcontract for access and technical analysis will be held by ACTA as the main beneficiary. Justification: ACTA and its third parties do not have access to the appropriate sites and facilities within their organisations. Estimated cost: 10,000 Euros

75


ISA Task in WP3: ISA will subcontract a contractor to support stakeholder tree regeneration trials in high value silvopastoral systems. New techniques will be tested to improve initial mortality rates and to reduce replanting costs. The exercise will also provide economic inputs for modelling purposes under the establishment of regeneration of existing agroforestry systems. Justification: this cannot be done cost-effectively in-house Estimated cost: 15,000 Euros Task in WP10: Financial Certificates for Financial Management Justification: Use of External Auditor Estimated cost: 4,000 Euros AGROOF Task in WP9: To set up and manage an internet Portal Justification: AGROOF proposes to use a specialist provider of internet websites to set up and manage the internet portal for AGFORWARD Project. Estimated cost: 20,000 Euros

2.3.5 Third parties Partner 2 includes one third party: Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU). SLU will undertake 3 person-months of research in WP2 to implement a stakeholder group and associated research in Sweden focussed on agroforestry of high cultural and natural value. Estimate cost: 38,414 Euros; eligible cost: 28,810 Euros Partner 3 includes two third parties: Institut pour le Développement Forestier (IDF) and L’Institut de L’Elevage (IDELE). The role of these parties are outlined in Section 2, but are summarised here for information. IDF will undertake one person month in WP3 and one person month in WP4 to develop and implement a method for describing existing agroforestry systems in France. IDF will also undertake 3.5 person months in WP9 related to the promotion of agroforestry by training farmers. Cost of resources: 64,648 Euros; eligible cost: 59,120 Euros

IDELE will undertake 5 person-months of research in WP5 to manage, implement, follow up and analyse the stakeholder-work related to ruminant agroforestry ruminant systems. It will also undertake 3 person-months in WP6 to provide data for the bio-economic analysis using Farm-SAFE. Cost of resources: 80,320 Euros; eligible cost: 60,240 Euros

76


2.4 Resources to be committed

2.4.1 Complementary resources

AGFORWARD offers exceptional value for money because it maximises the use of existing agroforestry experimental and demonstration sites across Europe, it extends the state of the art by building on the success of previous agroforestry and related research both within the EU and internationally, it harnesses the exceptionally high level of social capital in organisations such as EURAF, and it will further facilitate positive communication between the participants and the wider stakeholder community.

Commitment of experimental resources The AGFORWARD project will make optimal use of resources already existing within the project consortium. Within the budget, negligible resources will be used to establish new agroforestry sites because we have access to an extensive portfolio of existing experimental and demonstration sites (Tables 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5; Table 2.3). We also have the co-operation of farmers and land-owners willing to investigate innovative practices and designs.

Commitment of tools and models from previous research The consortium has access to an already validated set of agroforestry models, ranging from detailed scientific models (Hi-sAFe), to parameter-sparse spreadsheet-based models for financial and economic valuations (Table 1.6). This is further strengthened by modelling experience of organisations such as ICRAF and EFI.

Commitment of stakeholders In developing this project, it has been a real encouragement to have such positive feedback from such a wide range of stakeholders including farmers, land owners, commercial businesses, extension organisations, who are fully supportive of the goals and have indicated their readiness to contribute to the stakeholder workgroups.

Commitment of agroforestry networks The consortium embodies the principal agroforestry networks in Europe. Particularly critical is the involvement of the European Agroforestry Federation, and it constituent national associations.

2.4.1 Mobilisation of resources In developing the AGFORWARD project, the Project Co-ordinator has worked with each WP leader and each participant to develop an agreed personnel and other cost budget in line with the tasks, deliverables and milestones stated. Each participant has identified the resource needed to undertake their role in each work-package, as outlined in an internal project document. Each WP leader has identified the resource and the staff needed to complete successfully their work-package. This has allowed for the resource budget to be integrated in a coherent way, so that we have a financial plan that matches the work-programme.

The AGFORWARD project has committed at least 960 person-months of input into the project, including the most eminent and productive researchers working in the agroforestry field in Europe. This includes the involvement of at least two co-ordinators of previous EU projects who bring substantial project and research experience to the project.

In broad terms, the activities in WP1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have been included under the research and technological development column (Table 2.9). The focused dissemination activities in WP9 including booklets and the internet platform have been included in the “Other” column. As outlined in Section 2, the management budget relates solely to project management at CRAN, and specified financial auditing costs at one participant (ISA). The scientific management of the project and the resources to allow each participant to attend annual meetings (and WP-leaders meetings if required) are included within the RTD budgets related to WP1-8. All of the EU-based organisations have a role

77


in dissemination. INRA (which uses a different method from the other participants to determine the requested EC contribution from its total budget) has allocated budget for its dissemination activity within RTD for ease of accounting.

The budget for the project has been allocated across the five activities of the project (Table 2.8). Under 6% of the reclaimable budget and 3.2% of the person months have been allocated to project management. This includes itemised budgets for the Project Co-ordinator or Secretary to visit each participant and to ensure timely provision of the requirements of the European Commission. About 11% of the reclaimable budget and 8% of the person months are allocated to direct dissemination, although elements of dissemination are present in each work-package. The ACTA budget (WP9 leader) includes an equipment budget of 44000 Euros to cover web-application, audio-visual material, the interactive platform, and booklets. The remaining 83% of the total budget and 89% of the person months is allocated to research and technological development activities outlined in WP1 to WP8. This includes the initial context study (WP1), itemised costs for each stakeholder group allocated to a specified participant within overall budgets for each participative research and development network (WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5), the valuation work at field-and farm-scales (WP6, WP7), and the agroforestry policy development (WP8). Table 2.8 Necessary resources for the project (Euros) Participant No.

Organisation short name

Estimated budget (whole duration of project) Total receipts

Requested EC contribution

RTD Other (Dissem-ination)

Manage-ment

Total

1 CRAN 619305 72988 344578 1036872 0 882044

2 EFI 460558 13805 0 474364 0 359223

3 ACTA 150432 42536 1500 194468 0 156860

4 USC 341184 12800 0 353984 0 268688

5 TEI 344006 6400 0 350406 0 264404

6 INRA 877481 7224 0 884705 0 422152

7 ORC (PFT) 365484 42400 0 407884 0 316513

8 BTU 449299 24400 0 473699 0 361374

9 UNEX 383936 13600 0 397536 0 301552

10 ISA 469945 56211 4000 530156 0 409852

11 UCPH 408614 10880 0 419494 0 317340

12 FDEA (EVD) 527436 7880 2400 537716 0 405857

13 WER 6546 37802 0 44348 0 41075

14 AU 254356 11720 0 266076 0 202487

15 AFBI 145510 4680 0 150190 0 113812

16 CRA 116019 7200 0 123219 0 94214

17 LBI 225750 7580 0 233330 0 176892

18 CNR 180547 4800 0 185347 0 140210

19 NYME 121190 3200 0 124390 0 94092

20 UBB 104768 2560 0 107328 0 81136

21 VENETO 90681 3600 0 94281 0 71610

22 AGROOF 24000 158000 0 182000 0 176000

23 APCA 62244 6036 0 68280 0 52719

24 AFAF 54144 11568 0 65712 0 52176

25 ICRAF 109412 0 0 109412 0 82000

26 EURAF 88237 106365 0 194602 0 150484

Total 6981091 676236 352478 8009806 0 5994766

78


B3. Impact

3.1 Expected impacts listed in the work programme AGFORWARD has been specifically developed to maximise its impact by taking a stakeholder-led participatory approach to development of the work-programme, dissemination, and use of results. The choice of stakeholders, project participants, and the participatory work-programme have been designed to bring the maximum possible European and international resources and expertise to advance solutions on the expected impacts listed in the project call, i.e. better knowledge of existing and new intensive and extensive agroforestry systems, development of adapted and resilient agro-ecologically intensified systems, demonstration of the viability and economic sustainability of the developed systems, and, support for Rural Development, farm diversification, and mitigation of CO2 emissions. These are explained in turn

Better knowledge of existing and new intensive and extensive agroforestry systems The AGFORWARD consortium is an enormous repository of scientific and practitioner knowledge on European agroforestry, and includes amongst its members, most of the expert, practitioner, and disseminator expertise on agroforestry in Europe. It will use this considerable capability to advance (and disseminate) the state of the art knowledge on existing and new intensive and extensive agroforestry systems that it generates.

Agroforestry is a multi-functional land use and hence, in many senses, the management of agroforestry systems require a more detailed knowledge of site characteristics and the effects of ecological interactions than is needed for simple monoculture systems. The impact of creating better knowledge of agroforestry systems, begs the questions “whose knowledge?”, “knowledge for whom?”, and “knowledge of what?”. The participative research approach used by the project will allow the integration of traditional, professional and scientific knowledge to develop new agroforestry systems for European farmers and land owners. In terms of knowledge for whom, the project will provide knowledge for six key groups: i) the 33 stakeholder workgroups of farmers, land owners and managers, food producers and traders, extension workers, and participants, iii) similar groups not directly involved in the project, iii) the education sector, iv) policy makers, v) the international scientific community, and vi) the general public.

The project will enable effective knowledge transfer among 33 stakeholder work-groups each comprising 8-15 people in four networks, focused on specific rural land use sectors. Hence the project will directly bring together in excess of 380 scientists, extension professionals, food producers, land managers, and farmers across Europe, with an interest in agroforestry. Within 12 months of the start of the project, each network group will report on the existing knowledge of the key components, structure, ecosystem services and economic value of the systems, and the on current trends and constraints, and proposals to cope with these constraints (innovations). • The first network (WP2) will develop new knowledge on agroforestry systems of high natural

and cultural value (D2.1). • The second (WP3) focuses on six stakeholder groups working with high value tree systems, such

as olive plantations, walnut plantations, and apple orchards (D3.1). • The third (WP4) focuses on nine stakeholder groups interested in the successful integration of

trees within arable systems (D4.1) • The fourth (WP5) focuses on nine stakeholder groups interested in the integration of trees

within livestock production systems (D5.1).

It should be noted that the dissemination activities outlined in Section 3.2 are specifically intended to extend the knowledge generated above and beyond the initial stakeholder groups. AGFORWARD will ensure this through the production and dissemination of guidance to farmers and other stakeholder groups operating in the four sectors (D2.3; D3.3; D4.3; D5.3).

yolande

Texte surligné

79


AGFORWARD will generate a range of critically important knowledge and tools, leading to improved local, national and European practice and policies. Moreover, the generation of “bottom-up” participatory instruments, will ensure that practical constraints and opportunities are taken into consideration by all relevant stakeholders, such as farmers, extension workers, landowners and policy makers, at European, national, and regional levels. For example:

A major shortcoming in Europe is the lack of cartographic information on the location of different types of agroforestry system. This lack of data is problematic for many stakeholders, including policy-makers. WP1 will create an up-to-date inventory of the current extent of agroforestry in Europe, as defined in WP2-WP5 (D1.1). This will aid policy-makers targeting agricultural and rural development policy measures for specific parts of Europe. For instance, up to 25000 Spanish dehesa farms (Pulido & Picardo 2010) would benefit from this action.

Climate change presents many challenges to practitioner stakeholders and Mediterranean Europe in particular is likely to experience more water-stressed conditions. For this reason, AGFORWARD will look beyond Europe to determine in the long-term what agroforestry innovations might be used in such circumstances (D1.1).

A major difficulty in generating new knowledge on agroforestry systems is in terms of understanding the associated long term financial, social, and environmental impacts associated with implementation. AGFORWARD will generate an innovative suite of research tools for integrated decision-making both at the practitioner and policy level. In particular, this will advance knowledge of how agroforestry systems and innovations affect not just financial benefits for farmers, but also wider societal benefits in the form of impacts on ecosystem services provision (D.6.1-D6.3). The suite of modeling tools developed will help identify which systems and innovations improve provisioning services (e.g. timber and non-timber forest products, livestock, cropping), regulating (e.g. nitrate and GHG emissions) and cultural (e.g. recreation and aesthetic pleasure) ecosystem services across the systems identified in WP2-WP5. Scale dependent effects, trade-offs, and synergies among different ecosystem services will be evaluated. This will help stakeholders such as farmers, land owners, local authorities, and policy makers identify how they can improve wellbeing through the provision of both privately and publically valued benefits from land (see next paragraph).

Agroforestry systems are embedded in broader landscapes with specific pedo-climatic, societal, and political settings. To break down this complexity, AGFORWARD will develop new knowledge on agroforestry systems and practices at landscape level (D7.1-D7.4). This “European” scale perspective will help operationalize and target EU land use (e.g. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); Rural Development Regulations) and conservation policies (e.g. EU Biodiversity Strategy), so that necessary knowledge on the provision of ecosystem services in farmed landscapes, and the potential threats to that provision, are elucidated for stakeholders at all levels (D7.5, D8.2). AGFORWARD will highlight innovative strategies for farm diversification and creation of new income opportunities, which arise through exploiting the full range of high-quality products and ecosystem services from agroforestry. Many factors influencing agroforestry systems act on the EU scale (e.g. the CAP). Consequently, an approach aiming at a consistent and action-oriented plan for the development of agro-ecologically intensified agroforestry systems necessarily has to take a European perspective (D8.1, D8.2).

For researchers, AGFORWARD offers the following:

Global agroforestry research has tended to be segregated into continental groups. In North America there is the Association for Temperate Agroforestry, and the International Centre for Research on Agroforestry, head-quartered in Kenya, tends to focus on agroforestry in developing countries. The AGFORWARD project includes the innovative proposal for researchers based with ICRAF to review how their current knowledge of agroforestry systems in regions outside of Europe may help inspire and catalyse agroforestry innovation in Europe (Deliverable D1.1).

The research activities of the project will promote collaboration among different educational and research institutes in Europe. The project needs the participation of scientists from many

yolande

Texte surligné

80


disciplines, such as agriculturists, foresters, hydrologists, engineers, environmental biologists, rangeland scientists, animal scientists, food technologists and economists. This partnership will last for many years in order to develop the study of the environmental and socioeconomic aspects of agroforestry systems. The formation of this research group will be invaluable in the future for their participation in European research programmes and international organizations dealing with environmental protection issues and sustainable land management.

The European scale practitioner-scientist network that AGFORWARD creates will be an enduring and key output of the project. Whilst this will strengthen current European knowledge on the State of the Art in agroforestry knowledge, critically, it will also vastly strengthen future European capacity to undertake participatory research on land use issues against a backdrop of increasing pressure on land resulting from climate change, food security, and multiple stakeholder interests in ecosystem services provision. This will help European scientists to deliver on European commitments for sustainable development in all parts of the Union, and will benefit particularly the rural economies in the less developed countries of Europe.

Development of adapted and resilient agro-ecologically intensified systems The second objective of the project is to identify, develop and field-test innovations which will improve the benefits of agroforestry systems. AGFORWARD will use a participative research approach to work with farmers and land owners to adapt and develop resilient agroforestry systems that are both more productive and more sustainable in their delivery of beneficial ecosystem services to society (D2.2; D3.2; D4.2; D5.2). This participatory process will improve the resilience of the developed agroforestry systems, because those managing land will be actively working to adapt their systems to local conditions and potential future changes. As explained in the methodology, regionally- and sectorally-specific innovations will be identified and field-tested across 33 workgroups.

For High Cultural and Nature Value agroforestry systems, it is anticipated that stakeholder-led innovations will need to address soil degradation, reduction of nitrate leaching, alternative methods of tree generation, and the improvement of understorey pastures, as well as the use of GPS to manage movement of extensively-managed herds, and improved methods for branding agroforestry-derived products (D2.2). These innovations could have wide spatial impact. Such agroforestry systems occur in all European biogeographic regions (55000 km² of oak parklands in Iberian Peninsula, 20000 km² in Greece, 3300 km² in UK, 500-1000 km² in Germany (Bergmeier et al., 20109; Bunce et al., 2009; Moreno & Pulido, 2009). Grazed forests and semi-natural pastures are also present in Central and Eastern Europe (Luick, 2009), Scandinavia (Eriksson et al., 2002; Karlsson et al., 2010). However pan-European data on their spatial extent are missing (Bergmeier et al., 2010; Bunce et al., 2009; Riguiero-Rodríguez et al. 2009) AGFORWARD will analyze current environmental and economic threats compromising the long-term existence of high nature and cultural value systems and will assess how the proposed innovations will be able to improve their long-term profitability and provision of recreational and environmental services (D2.2).

For High Value Tree Systems, the olive production sector is particularly vulnerable, as high harvesting costs make traditional olive cultivation challenging. The decoupling of agricultural funding from production, and the expected changes to the CAP after 2013 are likely to result in the abandonment of millions of hectares of olive landscapes in Europe (as is already occurring to a large extent). Converting such areas to olive-based agroforestry system, by intercropping olives with other economically viable crops in innovative designs, could enhance economic sustainability, and ensure the continued existence of a traditional and iconic European agricultural landscape. Building on stakeholder feedback, it is anticipated that innovations will include the use of intercrops and grazing livestock to increase income, the use of legumes to improve tree nutrition and soil health, and the use of intercrops to encourage pollinators and to reduce soil erosion (D3.2). Our proposed research aims to open new opportunities on the use of traditional agroforestry systems with high value trees

yolande

Texte surligné

81


currently threatened by abandonment or land clearance. We consider that there is an increasing economic interest by individuals, stakeholders and private companies for such systems based on sound ecology. Such landscape not only protects the environment from erosion and fires, but is essential to tourism in several European countries where olive has been historically important and very much part of the landscape. Such innovative systems must be labour-efficient in order to be economically viable, but also ecologically sound to decrease their environmental impact. They will differ from old fashioned systems that were based on inexpensive labour, but will still provide environmental benefits compared to monocultures. Such systems need to be well designed, tested and demonstrated, in order to be adopted by farmers and to bring about the potential environmental and economic benefits. Similarly the results from AGFORWARD will provide new perspectives, ideas and management options for the adoption of other high value trees, such as walnut and apple, which can allow a shift from high-input to lower-input farming systems.

The innovations to be tested in the arable sector, again subject to feedback from the stakeholder groups, are also wide ranging. One possible innovation is a focus “on making hedgerows pay” by using them, or modified version of new hedgerow systems, as a bio-energy resource. Such systems could improve the resilience of farming systems to future energy price increases (EC, 2011). Associated with this is an improved understanding on the net carbon and nutrient balance of arable systems integrating trees. In this regard, the role of appropriately arranged trees in reducing nitrate leaching and soil runoff and associated phosphorus loss is important. Other innovations include exploration of shade-tolerant crop varieties, new designs in terms of tree spacing and management, and the use of trees to increase biodiversity in arable systems. Moreover detailed research will be completed, for example by INRA, on the role of trees in increasing the resilience of arable systems to avoidable climate change and increased climate variability (D4.2).

Trees can also increase the level of resource efficiency within livestock production systems. AGFORWARD will carry out work, again with appropriate adaptation to stakeholder needs, on innovative methods to achieve carbon neutrality, and improve product quality, whilst creating a financially and economically viable system (D5.2). AGFORWARD will provide best practices examples of how to alleviate greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production. By delivering ‘real life’ tested management procedures for farmers based on studies in many pedo-climate regions and with different types of livestock (ruminants, poultry and pigs) the project will provide a development-path for many livestock farmers throughout Europe. The well documented results on achieved production (private benefits for farmers) and the related eco-system services (the common benefit) which the project produces, will at the same time offer a good framework for policy makers, including regional decision makers, to liaise with farmers in order to achieve a better balance between production and environmental impact. In addition, the project will demonstrate how part of the externalities related to livestock production (e.g. GHG emission and biodiversity losses) can be internalized in the food chain, by adding value to the products that consumers find valuable, and thus are willing to pay a premium price for. Critically, this will also support economic activities in rural areas.

Demonstration of the viability and economic sustainability of the developed systems An important criterion for the widespread adoption of new practices is the demonstration of the viability and economic sustainability of the system. Moreover the system must also be socially and environmentally sustainable. By adopting a participative research approach (WP2-WP5), AGFORWARD will seek to develop systems that are adapted to the needs of farmers, land managers, food producers, and consumers more widely. The proposed programme of stakeholder-facilitated innovations will mean that agroforestry innovations will be demonstrated across the European Union in 33 planned stakeholder communities (D2.1, D3.1, D4.1, D5.1). They extend from Portugal in South West Europe, to Northern Ireland in the North-West, Denmark, Sweden and Finland in North Europe, and Romania and Greece in South East Europe.

82


The word “demonstrate” means to “give a practical exhibition and explanation” or to “show clearly the existence or truth” of something (Oxford English Dictionary). Through the 33 stakeholder work-groups and the associated experimental work and field-tests, AGFORWARD will give practical exhibitions and explanations of the proposed innovations.

A key part of AGFORWARD is the evaluation of the economic sustainability of agroforestry systems from a societal perspective (D6.2). The development of simple tools to describe both financial and the wider societal benefit and cost of multifunctional systems is critical to allow land managers to appropriately manage the European land resource.

Social Impact Assessment can be defined as the assessment, in advance, of the social consequences that are likely to follow the introduction of specific innovations or policy actions (D6.3, D7.5, D8.2). It is a process that provides a framework for prioritizing, gathering, analysing, and incorporating social information and participation into the design and delivery of interventions. Within the project, the social impact of selected innovations will be analysed in terms of their positive and negative social effect. The process will be structured in accordance with EC Impact Assessment Guidelines and it will be developed employing a set of social indicators such as: i) creation of employment opportunities, ii) effects on the quality of working conditions, iii) security of the technology; and iv) the effect on the management of farms.

Support for Rural Development, farm diversification, and mitigation of CO2 emissions AGFORWARD addresses key aspects of the EU’s Rural Development programme, with a focus on improved competitiveness for European agriculture and forestry, whilst improving the environment, and improving quality of rural life and diversity (EC, 2005). It addresses issues of resource efficiency in line with the EC’s strategy for 'Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for Europe'. It supports a move towards a society which sustainably uses biological resources to produce not only safe food and feed, but also bio-based materials, bio-energy and environmental services.

Improved competitiveness in agricultural and forestry systems can be derived from lower costs, higher yields, higher prices, new products, or improved communication between producers and retailers. The AGFORWARD project could contribute to each of these. Methods to enable cheaper and more effective tree regeneration would reduce costs. Reducing dependence on external fodder is the aim of livestock producers in wood pastures. Appropriate use of legume intercrops, and the more effective use of environmental resources such as solar radiation, water and carbon dioxide by integrated tree and crop systems can increase yields (Fig 1.1). In turn these higher yields can reduce pressure on other land, leading to reduced deforestation, and reduced conversion of forest land to agricultural production. Additionally, new modern systems will be studied and new products and possibilities will emerge from AGFORWARD.

WP6, working with the four participative networks, will also focus on how some agroforestry products may be more highly valued by consumers either in terms of direct product quality and/or the associated environmental benefits. Lastly by using a participative approach, bringing where possible farmers, food producers, and retailers together, the project will seek to improve communication and trust among key actors in the food chain.

Rural development also implies environmental improvement. The research undertaken in WP7 will consider specifically the role of agroforestry practices in improving biodiversity, and hence contribute to EU targets to prevention of further loss of biodiversity until 2020, as outlined in the EU biodiversity strategy. The development of robust multi-functional food production systems can also lead to a more diversified and hence resilient land use systems, and thereby a strong and sustainable agricultural sector (D2.3, D3.3, D4.3, D5.3). For example the improvement of systems involving high value trees, often found in economically underdeveloped areas, would contribute positively to such by encouraging rural businesses and employment. A second key feature of a strong rural sector is

83


strong rural connections. For example, in the Spanish region of Extremadura, UNEX is in contact with more the 1500 dehesa owners thank to the ASAJA database (farmer association).

A key issue is the effect of land use on the net emissions of greenhouse gases, and its role in reducing EU greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80 to 95% by 2050 (EC, 2011). This includes carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Detailed research using the Hi-sAFe and Yield-SAFE models will evaluate how agroforestry systems can be configured to maximise reductions of GHG emissions (D6.2). The contribution of this on a field, farm, national and European scale will be made and assessed in economic terms using a social cost for carbon. The negative human health impacts of ammonia emissions, as highlighted by Spencer et al. (2008) will also be considered where possible.

The above paragraphs demonstrate that AGFORWARD will provide better knowledge of existing and new intensive and extensive agroforestry systems and will help develop agro-ecological intensified mixed agricultural systems adapted to different European pedo-climatic conditions and more resilient to pronounced stress conditions. It will demonstrate the viability and the economic sustainability of the developed systems. It will support rural development and farm diversification while mitigating CO2 emissions. It will also contribute to reduced pesticide use and demonstrate how agroforestry can be used to reduce pollution to the soil, water and atmosphere. Additionally, valuable wisdom on the traditional use of these systems will be preserved and passed-on to future generations. It will add to our knowledge on the production of higher quality products, many of which are organic. This increase in higher quality food production may result in lowering prices and making them available to more consumers. Finally it will create a practitioner-scientist-policy network for the future, an invaluable and enduring knowledge resource base that, in a changing world, will help European countries to find sustainable solution to their land resource problems.

3.2 Dissemination and exploitation of project results The dissemination and exploitation of the project results is a central focus of the AGFORWARD project and the project’s fourth objective is to promote the wider adoption of appropriate agroforestry systems in Europe. WP9 is focused entirely on dissemination.

Dissemination strategy Effective dissemination of results is a critical objective of AGFORWARD. Often, the risk is to limit the dissemination strategy to reports placed on a conventional website. In AGFORWARD, we will take a more participative and imaginative approach. There are three foundations to our approach. 1) We will not re-invent the wheel. The European Agroforestry Federation (EURAF) and ACTA, have

already established effective dissemination formats including conferences and seminars, and tools such as videos and other footage. This will also help ensure that results and the networks developed are more likely to extend beyond the life of the project.

2) The general philosophy of the AGFORWARD consortium is to be open and transparent in our communication, an approach developed during the development of the application. We will seek to involve researchers outside of the consortium where appropriate.

3) Perhaps unusually for a European Project, the consortium includes two organizations who are well equipped in the use of a range of techniques in terms of advocacy (WERV and ACTA). However all EU participants in the project have a role in dissemination, and this has been identified within the person-month allocation and the budget.

As outlined in WP9, AGFORWARD will liaise closely with key user groups to identify the most appropriate means of communication (D9.1). AGFORWARD will take an “upwards” (Fig 3.1) and an “outwards” (Fig 3.2) approach to communicating with farming groups and extension services. The “Upwards” approach places a strong emphasis on the participative research networks based on the promotion of appropriate agroforestry practices across four sectoral groups (Fig 3.1). This approach places a heavy emphasis on in-field demonstration and evaluation of the systems and innovations.

84


The “outwards” approach takes a more conventional approach of using a web-based interactive platform to communicate the results of the project with six main user groups (Fig 3.2).

Fig 3.1 Schematic diagram highlighting “upwards” dissemination based on the participative network across four sectoral groups and the stakeholder groups (SHG), comprising at least 380 stakeholders.

Fig 3.2 Schematic diagram highlighting that the “outwards” AGFORWARD dissemination approach

which will make use of an interactive internet-platform and six main user groups.

85


Identifying end-users and the most effective means of communication The AGFORWARD project has identified six key user-groups (farmers and landowners; enterprises, extension services; researchers; policy makers, and education providers) (Fig 3.2) together with national stakeholder communities, and the general public.

Farmers, land owners, enterprises, and extension services: it is anticipated that these groups will particularly value access to technical and financial information related to agroforestry systems (Table 3.1). AGFORWARD will make optimal use of real-life practical demonstrations of agroforestry practices as outlined in Tables 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5. To improve impact across Europe, AGFORWARD will use new tools such as an interactive platform, with case studies of key agroforestry innovations in different parts of Europe and in different systems.

Researchers: the interactive web-platform will create a European resource (map, experimental and demonstrations tools) to encourage scientific research. The consortium also places a strong emphasis on the development of peer-reviewed publications.

Policy makers: for EU, national and regional agencies in charge of implementing agroforestry, the project will develop tools to identify appropriate agroforestry practices, and succinct policy briefing papers describing key results.

Education providers: the project will seek to reinforce the place of agroforestry in training courses for school and university students. Videos illustrating organised visits to field sites to demonstrate agroforestry will be developed.

National stakeholder communities: the web-site will include tools to support the creation of national agroforestry associations based on the experience of EURAF and member associations. This will help agroforestry development in new areas in Europe. By month 24, support will have been given to at least 12 national associations under the supervision of EURAF.

The general public: increased public awareness of the benefits of agroforestry is important to encourage the wider adoption of appropriate agroforestry practices across the EU. Implementing a visual demonstration platform will allow a global audience to see how agroforestry can create landscape of high natural and cultural value, with benefits for tourism and increased profile of cultural food products. This will be achieved by the interactive platform, participants speaking at meetings of groups involved with agriculture, forestry and the environment and participating in international events such as European Science Week.

yolande

Texte surligné

86


Table 3.1 Anticipated user-groups who will benefit from the project, with a brief description of possible outputs, content, format and language, and the responsible WP and consortium member.

Anticipated user-group

Output Content Format and language Responsible team

All Interactive platform

Dissemination outputs, agenda, newsletter

Website (Html5); videos, pictures, documents (12 languages)

All WPs; AGROOF, ACTA, and WP leaders

AGFORWARD partners

Extranet Working files; milestones and deliverables

Website with private access for the project (English)

Content: All partners.

Farmers, technicians policy makers

Technical booklet

Agroforestry project management (tree, crop and animal)

48 page booklet; paper, pdf and html; English (several translations possible)

WP2-5; AGROOF with ACTA

and students Economics booklet

Agroforestry profitability


WP6; AGROOF and EFI

Enterprises policy makers, and students

Agroforestry issues booklet

Market driven products, and productions issues


WP1-7; AGROOF, EURAF, EFI

Policy makers, land owners, students

Regulation and policy booklet

Place of agroforestry in the European and national policies


WP8; EURAF, AGROOF

Technicians, farmers, students,

Technico-economical models

Decision models to test agroforestry scenarios

Web application models (English)

WP6; AGROOF and EFI

Training centers, schools and universities

Education outputs

Tools and content for student training courses (college and engineer) and for professionals (farmers and technicians)

Toolbox with: Slideshows, conferences videos, documents, model-linked simulation tools (English; 12 languages for the slides shows)

WP 1-8; AGROOF, UNEX, EURAF, BTU, WER

Farmers, extension services, policy makers, enterprises

Develop-ment outputs

Actions and tools to help extension services and others to catalyse agroforestry development

Toolbox with slide shows and documents, farm visits, conferences Workshops Regulations tool (Different languages)

WP 8,9; EURAF, WER

Researchers, students, extension services

Research commun-ication

Experimental plots, team map, and topics to encourage scientific exchange

-Map available on the platform -Booklet in English – pdf format (English)

All participants; ACTA and EURAF

The AGFORWARD project has identified six key outputs which can be related to specific audiences and specific content: i) Interactive platform: this will allow any interested person to find out about the project, and will

link to the key dissemination pathways listed below. ii) Videos: videos provide a means of communicating agroforestry practices to policy makers,

farmers and landowners who are unable to see agroforestry systems in the field. The videos will include practical examples of agroforestry systems in practice.

yolande

Texte surligné

yolande

Texte surligné

yolande

Texte surligné

87


iii) Decision-making facilities for farmers (e.g., farmer-friendly software and simulation tools based for example on FARM-SAFE, web application models, and model-linked simulation tools).

iv) Reports and reviews: these are particularly valued by research scientists and land use advisors. The content will be the main research findings of the project.

v) Electronic newsletter: the opportunity to receive an electronic newsletter will be given to members of existing agroforestry fora connected with participants. Each WP leader will contribute a regular feature on the key issues and findings.

vi) Peer-reviewed publications: significant and novel research findings will be prepared as research papers for submission to peer-reviewed academic journals. We anticipate at a minimum, at least one peer-reviewed scientific publication per work-package.

Description of the internet-platform To maximise the impact of the project, we will create an interactive internet platform (Fig 3.2) focused on agroforestry development and results dissemination. The platform will enable results dissemination, decision-making tooks, and communication to six user groups and the general public, Unlike most conventional web-design, we will use Html5 rather than html4 for the website construction. This will allow the user greater flexibility in the use of the site and more flexible use of videos, interaction, and transversal reading levels. It will also allow use of “Web documentaries” for dissemination, which allows users to dictate the narration and the content i.e. a database, videos, photos, texts, sound, in a free structure.

The platform will seek to address the complexity found in the day-to-day experience of farmers, technicians, policy makers and researchers. Example testimonies, experiences, data sheets, booklets and models will be possible to help guide the design and evaluation of potential agroforestry projects. The interactive platform will be translated in 12 languages (as represented by the AGFORWARD consortium). It will include tools focused on “Communication”, “Technical and economical analysis”, “Decision-making”, and a training course toolbox. The web application of the FARM-SAFE model used in the project is innovative, and will be complementary to the technical and economical booklets. Other innovations include the creation of special tools developed for enterprises involved in the agroforestry products sector. In the similar way, special communication tools will be created for the researchers to improve the links among the different European research teams whose activities link to agroforestry and the continuum between forestry and agriculture.

3.3 Management of the dissemination process and intellectual property rights The dissemination process must balance the development of an active current and dynamic facility with the need to maintain quality and coherence. The web platform will be managed by the WP9 leader. Within the initial month of the project, the WP leaders, including the Project-Co-ordinator will develop a communication protocol. For example spatial data results will be catalogued according to the INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC, and thus be available to other research projects.

The intention is that knowledge and tools developed in this project will be shared by the participants and will be made available, without profit, for general non-commercial use. There will be a policy to publish the project methodology and the results on the web. For scientific publications, project rules will be established so that the first authorship will be given to the person who does the major part of the work, and that other contributors are appropriately recognised.

Assuming that this application is successful, a consortium agreement will be prepared by the Project Co-ordinator during the contract negotiations in order to provide an Annex to the contract with the EC. The consortium agreement will include all important aspects related to services and activities allocated to the parties under the contract, the term and conditions of functioning and cooperation. The Consortium Agreement will be the reference document for setting the rules for the project.

88


4. Ethical issues

The AGFORWARD consortium has considered potential ethical issues associated with carrying out the project, and a summary is provided in Table 4.1. The project will completely comply with all national legislation where the research is carried out. The project will also be in conformity with relevant EU legislation, in particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and other international conventions and declarations, including the Helsinki Declaration in its latest version, the Convention of the Council of Europe on Human Rights and Biomedicine, the Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights adopted by UNESCO, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the related Cartagena protocol, and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic resources for food and agriculture. The Project Coordination Committee will raise the question on “ethical issues” as a special topic at each six-monthly WP-leader Committee meeting in order to secure ethics rules and regulations and to make all participants sensitive for this question. The AGFORWARD consortium herewith confirms that the proposed research project does not involve any,

research activity aimed at human cloning for reproductive purposes,

research activity intended to modify the genetic heritage of human beings which could make such changes heritable;

research activity intended to create human embryos solely for the purpose of research or for the purpose of stem cell procurement, including by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer;

research involving the use of human embryos or embryonic stem cells with the exception of banked or isolated human embryonic stem cells in culture;

processing of genetic information or personal data (e.g. health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)

tracking the location or observation of people

research on laboratory or transgenic animals

use of local resources (genetic, animal, plant etc) in developing countries nor hindering of benefit to local community, some capacity building will take place in the three ICPC countries with respect to international standards for research methods and training of local personnel and students;

research having potential military / terrorist application. The AGFORWARD project involves management and use of farm animals. However, this does not include invasive techniques and includes only common practices for animal husbandry in participating countries. The applicants confirm that animal husbandry practice imposed by the project will follow legal requirements and good agricultural practice in the respective countries. Regarding the interaction with farmers through questionnaires, the AGFORWARD consortium will aim to safeguard the interests of those involved in or affected by their work, to ensure that their methods of investigation are appropriate, to report their findings accurately and truthfully, and to consider the consequences of their work or its misuse for those they study and other interested parties. Participants in this research shall be treated as the subjects, rather than the objects of research, and their rights shall be respected fully: 1) Freely given written consent will be sought from all people participating in the research. The

researcher will make clear to the participants that they can refuse to take part or withdraw from the research at any point and that they may reject the use of data-gathering devices, such as tape recorders.

89


2) The privacy of those participating in the research will be respected; to protect the participants further, all identifiers will be removed from the data and pseudonyms will be used.

3) Feedback on research findings will be provided to those people who participated in the research as part of acknowledging their contribution and seeking their views on outputs and dissemination.

Table 4.1 Ethics issues table

We concur that our research shall comply with the relevant national, EU and international ethics-related rules and professional codes of conduct. Where necessary, the beneficiary(ies) shall provide the responsible Commission services with a written confirmation that it has received (a) favourable opinion(s) of the relevant ethics committee(s) and, if applicable, the regulatory approval(s) of the competent national or local authority(ies) in the country in which the research is to be carried out, before beginning any Commission approved research requiring such opinions or approvals. The copy of the official approval from the relevant national or local ethics committees will be provided to the responsible Commission services.

Research on Human Embryo/ Foetus YES Page

Does the proposed research involve human Embryos? NO

Does the proposed research involve human Foetal Tissues/ Cells? NO

Does the proposed research involve human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs)? NO

Does the proposed research on human Embryonic Stem Cells involve cells in culture?

NO

Does the proposed research on Human Embryonic Stem Cells involve the derivation of cells from Embryos?

NO

I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL YES

Research on Humans YES Page

Does the proposed research involve children? NO

Does the proposed research involve patients? NO

Does the proposed research involve persons not able to give consent? NO

Does the proposed research involve adult healthy volunteers? NO

Does the proposed research involve Human genetic material? NO

Does the proposed research involve Human biological samples? NO

Does the proposed research involve Human data collection? NO


Privacy YES Page

Does the proposed research involve processing of genetic information or personal data (e.g. health, sexual lifestyle, ethnicity, political opinion, religious or philosophical conviction)?

NO

90


Does the proposed research involve tracking the location or observation of people?

NO


Research on Animals YES Page

Does the proposed research involve research on animals? YES Preceding page 107

Are those animals transgenic small laboratory animals? NO

Are those animals transgenic farm animals? NO

Are those animals non-human primates? NO

Are those animals cloned farm animals? NO

I CONFIRM THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ISSUES APPLY TO MY PROPOSAL

Research Involving non-EU Countries (ICPC Countries6) YES Page

Is the proposed research (or parts of it) going to take place in one or more of the ICPC Countries?

NO

Is any material used in the research (e.g. personal data, animal and/or human tissue samples, genetic material, live animals, etc) :

a) Collected and processed in any of the ICPC countries?

NO

b) Exported to any other country (including ICPC and EU Member States)? MNO


Dual Use YES Page

Research having direct military use NO

Research having the potential for terrorist abuse NO


6 In accordance with Article 12(1) of the Rules for Participation in FP7, ‘International Cooperation

Partner Country (ICPC) means a third country which the Commission classifies as a low-income (L),

lower-middle-income (LM) or upper-middle-income (UM) country. Countries associated to the

Seventh EC Framework Programme do not qualify as ICP Countries and therefore do not appear in

this list.

91


92


5 Consideration of Gender Issues Gender equality is a human rights issue and is necessary to achieve sustainable people-centered development. AGFORWARD will actively the promotion of gender integration in research where the woman total rate of participation remains unsatisfactory (EC 2012; UNESCO 2011, 2012). No gender differences are made in AGFORWARD and all the aspects of the research can be similarly conducted by women and men. The outputs of the AGFORWARD project will also not discriminate between women and men.

Prof Anastasia Pantera, of TEI (Participant 5) has been appointed as “Gender Manager” and contact person of the AGFORWARD-consortium for gender issues, and will support the coordinator on this issue. All issues relating the equality and opportunity or employments within the scope of the project will be within the responsibility of the Gender Manager. She will also survey a list of recommendations, agreed by the consortium, based on the strategy developed by the EC (EC 2008; EP 2008). All participating organizations in the AGFORWARD-consortium have been alerted to the importance of addressing gender aspects, through documentation produced by UNESCO (2007), the European Commission, the Helsinki Group on Women and Science, and the Women in Life Sciences Network. In addition to gender issues within the project team, there may also be gender issues amongst stakeholders. The Project “Gender Manager” will take care to address these issues, to ensure that all stakeholder women views are expressed and taken into account during the project.

In the project, the proposed number of women and men in the staff involved are 46 (36%) and 81 respectively. There are two female work-package leaders. In the procedures for staffing a further seven positions, a balanced staff policy will be followed. The target rate is to have over 37% women employed at different positions at the end of the project and this will be monitored. Each AGFORWARD participant will be responsible for promoting gender awareness and equality within the project at their organisation, and for providing data and reporting back on gender issues in special topics at the annual meetings. Particular attention will be paid to the opportunities offered for female researchers to attend conferences and present papers.

1. Equality and gender mainstreaming: the AGFORWARD consortium are committed to gender mainstreaming and equality and will seek to ensure that women and men have equal opportunity to benefit from the research, participation, communication, and management activities. The issue will be handled in the same way as other organizational functions, such as human resources, budget, financial controlling and reporting. The AGFORWARD-consortium is strongly committed to encourage more women to work in science, in particular when employing new staff or students for the project's work. AGFORWARD will also promote the integration of young researchers, which proportion between male and female researchers tends to be more balanced; therefore a focus on their advancement is likely to promote gender equality.

2. Recommendations for improving the work-life-balance: the AGFORWARD-consortium recognizes the requirement to treat each employee as a whole person. The project partners are asked to verify that their contract of employment allows parental leave or part-time work for all staff with young children. If this is not the case, the consortium management will request measures for adjustments. There will be a well-defined planning of activities in order to help balance work and private life. It will be the responsibility of the WP leaders and coordinator to ensure planning of tasks and activities is done well enough in advance to allow individual partners and their staff to plan the work within AGFORWARD along with other commitments they may have.

3. Special topic at each annual meeting: during each annual meeting, the meeting will discuss and address issues on gender balance. These activities demonstrate that the consortium acknowledges the role of women in science is an important topic as we take agroforestry in Europe forward.

Documents

THEME [KBBE.2013.1.2-01] [Agro-forestry systems for Europe]