PRIMA aims to develop a method for scaling down the analysis of policy impacts on multifunctional land uses and on the economic activities. The scoped policies will include the cohesion policy (ERDF, ESF, CF), the enlargement process (IPA) & the rural development policy (EAFRD) of the European Commission, with a special focus on agriculture, forestry, tourism, and ecosystem services. The approach will: rely on micro-simulation and multiagents models, designed and validated at municipality level, using input from stakeholders; address the structural evolution of the populations (appearance, disappearance and change of agents) depending on the local conditions for applying the structural policies on a set of municipality case studies. Involving eleven partners, the project is coordinated by Cemagref.

PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY

Facing structural change, European rural areas still fulfil multiple social, economic and ecological functions. Because of scale interplays and sustainability trade-offs, their future dynamics are yet particularly difficult to ascertain. PRIMA aims to develop methods for scaling down the assessment of policy impacts on multifunctional land-use and economic activities. The project focuses on agriculture, forestry, tourism, and ecosystem services, with special attention to the structural effects of the policies.

The PRIMA project started in November 2008, connecting 11 research institutes and universities from 9 countries to progress in this domain. This project includes the following actions: -Review the EU structural policies, identify driving forces at EU, national and regional levels for multifunctional land use activities and provide baselines for the design of national and regional scenarios on multifunctional land use activities. -Interaction with stakeholders: pre-model engagement with stakeholders in terms of scenario design and formulating agent decision rules for agent-based models, on-model engagement with stakeholders mirroring agent-based models, and post-model engagement with stakeholders in terms of assessing model outputs. -Design and develop micro-simulation and multi-agents models, of local dynamics and of the impact of European structural policies at the municipality level. -Build a mapping between available data on municipalities and prototypical, contrasted evolutions of microsimulation and agent based models. This will allow us to aggregate the results provided by these models at a regional level, on a set of regional case studies, and to compare these results with existing models at regional scale. -Investigate the potential of the approach to design a method that enhances the scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Sustainable Impact Assessment (SIA).

The project is split into 6 workpackages, and includes intensive communication among workpackages, especially when working on the case studies (see Figure 1 :for details).

During the first 18 months of the project, we focused on literature and documents reviews, to root the model in the latest scientific paths along fitting the modelled objects to the issues raised by the stakeholders in the six case study areas.

We analysed the strategic and planning documents in six countries (corresponding to PRIMA 6 case study areas): though very few documents specifically address directly the multifunctionality concept, many measures are targeted to several pillar of sustainable development at the same time [START_REF] Kopeva | Critical analysis and assessment of EU policy on multifunctional land use activities and regional level (review of policies in agriculture, forestry, tourism and environment); D1.1; PRIMA collaborative project, EU 7th Framework Programme[END_REF]. Thus, we adopted an operationalised definition of multifunctionality, derived from An analysis of the strategic and planning documents in the case study areas highlights that many measures are targeted to several pillars of sustainable development, even though multifunctionality (MF) concept is often unaddressed. Because of the bottom-up governance of the European cohesion policy, a large variety of priorities and measures has been observed, so we oriented the first stakeholders interviews towards their major objectives and the specific measures they activate from the cohesion policy to reach their own objectives.

Two groups of stakeholders were identified: those who can assist in scenario and model development and in model validation (drawn from the institutions which implement policy), and the actors who may be affected by the policy and whose behaviour will be captured in the AB model. Two rounds of interviews have been performed, the first one to gain contextual information about the wider case study information. From cluster analysis and this information, sets of municipalities were selected, then a second round of interviews was conducted to identify relevant policy issues and appropriate policy measures. These interviews provide the main events which have occurred during the last 20 years, policy outcomes, the EU funding streams, proposals for new measures. A conceptual model has been developed from extensive literature review and information collected during the surveys. This model focuses on the population dynamics in rural municipalities and on the decision making behaviours observed in such areas, including indicators requirements to match with IA methods. A general method for generating households from different available data at municipality level has been designed: at this level, only average data are available and the method enables to generate relevant individual data to be included in the models. The model has been adapted to the case studies: at this stage, downscaling occurs to input data for the models.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref We developed a working regional economic model that interacts between global changes (GTAP-IMAGE interactions) and multi-agent based tool at local level. It covers activities agriculture, forestry, services and nature. A start has been made with a program for downscaling. We are working on a procedure to generate the basic regional data for the input. We have to start data generation and theoretical and empirical work to improve on the allocation procedures of national developments to regions.

Considering backbone scenarios, first modelling at European level started, with the identification of key economic and demographic factors that drive land use patterns at regional and local levels. External drivers and policies have been distinguished. GTAP and IMAGES have been linked to provide a working modelling framework. Last, we progressed towards enhancing the scope of IA methods, with a review of literature and extensive work between all workpackages.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES OF THE PERIOD

The main objectives of the reporting period were:

-WP1: analyse and assess EU policies on multifunctional land use activities, develop baselines for the design of national and regional scenarios on multifunctional land use activities.

WORK PROGRESS AND ACH IEVEMENTS OF THE PERIOD

Prima teams have achieved WP1 work and now focus on related publications. WP2 has made substantial progress in steps 1 and 2 in stakeholders' interaction, and now concentrates on publications and step 3 (on-model engagement). Doing so needs deep interactions with WP3, who designed and implemented a common general micro-simulation model. However, the development of simulations in pilot municipalities is delayed 3 to 4 months, which delays the relative tasks.

A major conceptual change arose during the modelling period, and WP3 and 4 models should be developed together, leading to a closer cooperation than initially planned. Modellers' conceptualisation of prototypical dynamics evolved towards groups of municipalities and their network structures.

Modelling in WP5 in on good way, and WP6 cooperates with the other workpackages to progress towards the design a method that enhances the scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Sustainable Impact Assessment (SIA).

3.1 WP 1 | From policies objectives to scenario design at national and regional levels Focussed on the impact assessment of general and specific EU policies on multifunctional land use, WP1 activities have entailed the development of general baselines for the design of national and regional scenarios.

Progress towards objective 1 (To analyse and assess EU policies on multifunctional land use activities)

An extensive document review of strategic and planning documents in the six case study countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Croatia, Bulgaria) was achieved, with a specific focus on the existing policy application on different levels and areas (agriculture, forestry, tourism, environment) that focus on concepts related to the PRIMA project (T1 -M 1.1 and D1.1).

A screening impact matrix was developed, allowing to range the detailed policy measures according to their importance, with regards to multifunctionality. The output of the matrix is used for the development of the scenarios and for the modelling of socio-ecological dynamics (WP3 and WP4).

During the review process, the relevant driving forces were identified, with a focus on major development trends, possible modifications, and their effects on the multifunctionality of land use and development of economic activities (D1.2, M1.2 and M1.3).

Progress towards objective 2 (To develop baselines for the design of national and regional scenarios on multifunctional land use activities)

Socio-economic profiles of the six case-study regions have been prepared (D1.3). Alternative scenarios have been developed on the basis of aforementioned assessments (D1.1). They focus on policy changes and possible results/outputs of the EU policy implementation on regional and local (LAU) level. These scenarios, reference points for the down/upscaling in WP3/4/5 will be verified and improved during the project duration, as part of WP2 activities.

A set of criteria for the selection of municipalities was designed. A two-step clusterisation allowed to identify contrasted LAU 1 and LAU2 units in the six case study areas (M1.4). The selected municipalities (and sets of municipalities) are subject of in-depth studies in WP2 (pilot individual and focus group discussions), WP3 and WP4 (population dynamics and scenario dynamics).

As a subsequent result, a database of available socio-, economic, environmental statistical information on NUTS 2, NUTS 3 and LAU 1 was developed (D1.4). The database is serving the needs of WP3, WP4, WP5 and WP6.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Significant results

-Multifunctionality is relevant for the regional governance of structural funds, but remains mostly unaccounted for.

-The detailed review and analysis of the EU policies (on national and regional level and their impact on multifunctional land use) revealed that, in most cases, regional strategic and planning documents support measures for multifunctional land use activities only in an indirect way.

-The study revealed significant differences between country and thus the necessity of developing participative initiatives integrating these specificities in the different case studies. The diversity of institutions and organizations involved in the process of implementation of Structural and Cohesion Funds, and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) appeared high within case study regions. Direct Beneficiaries (excluding Local authorities) are not involved directly in the process of policy measures' development.

They rarely participated in the regional strategy development and in the identification of measures and priorities in the national planning documents.

-The complexity of ‗MF' impacts is tractable with detailed expert-based assessments -An original analytical framework was developed for the analysis of the impact of policy priorities / measures on multifonctionality. Based on indicators translating the multifunctional character of the activities on the basis of the three SD pillars, the framework was confronted with every measure of the policies on the basis of an expertise from PRIMA scientists; the potential impacts were informed according to three levels "positive", "neutral" or -negative "; a synthesis joining all the indicators was made by measure of policy, followed by a classification of the various measures by priority. (Cf figure 4.

for the general overview of IPA) The ‗baseline' scenario, is a projection of the status quo in terms of agricultural and environmental policies, technological and market conditions, and the projection of technological trends and of decided policy changes to be implemented until the target year 2013. An 'Environment' scenario was built on the assumption that measures for landscape, natural and cultural heritage preservation will be leading, with an explicit recognition of multifunctional land use activities.

The 'Rural development' scenario puts the emphasis on: increasing competitiveness of agriculture and forestry; improving land management; implementing complex measures for environment protection and preservation, wider rural economy through new agricultural and non-agricultural activities; increasing the role of local initiative groups in regional and local decision making process. The 'Infrastructure & Competitiveness' scenario assumes that Cohesion policy will have leading role on national and regional level, focusing on improvement of business environment, establishment of business opportunities and favorable environment for business initiatives linked to multifunctional land use on regional level.

Alternative scenarios developed within WP1 give the general framework . According to the country specifics they will be adjusted in the modeling in WP3, WP4 and WP5.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

WP2 | Stakeholder perspectives and participatory approaches

Annex 1 summarises WP2's objectives as four sequential steps:

Step 1: Identification of stakeholders and stakeholder roles in terms of premodel, on-model and post-model analysis

Step 2: Pre-model engagement with stakeholders in terms of scenario design and formulating agent decision rules for agent-based models (of WP3)

Step 3: On-model engagement with stakeholders mirroring agent-based models (of WP3)

Step 4: Post-model engagement with stakeholders in terms of assessing model outputs (of WP3 and WP4) Substantial progress has been made towards Steps 1 and 2, and to a lesser extent to Step 3.

Identification of stakeholders and stakeholder roles

A literature review of stakeholder identification, drawing on both business management and environmental management literature, was submitted as D2.1. (Task 2.1.1). Two groups of stakeholders were identified. First those who can assist in scenario and model development, and in model validation, who are drawn from the institutions which implement policy. Second, the actors who are the targets of policy (or who may be affected by it) and whose behaviour will be captured in the agent based model. An interest-influence matrix will be used to identify the most relevant actors for the particular policies studied.

A limited scoping study was conducted in early 2009 by each partner to gain contextual information about their wider case study region. Employing a written interview guide, a round of approximately 5 informal interviews with officials (both public sector and practitioners) with an interest in the rural economy, farming, forestry and tourism was conducted. As well as supporting stakeholder identification, by investigating institutional structures and access to EU development funds, the interviews identified categories of municipalities and their differential evolutions, and relevant EU policy options and their likely impacts.

During discussion at the Zagreb, Croatia meeting (October 2009) it was decided that stakeholder participation in scenario design would occur at two stages, one at the pre-model stage and the other at the on-model stage. First, for each individual case study area, the views of institutional and local stakeholders would be elicited to identify policy areas of local relevance for further study. These would reflect the social, economic and environmental characteristics and needs of individual areas, and permit researchers subsequently to develop scenarios (‗storylines'), consisting of plausible sequences of events

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
and appropriate policy responses. At a second stage, in Autumn 2010, stakeholders would be confronted with these scenarios and the results obtained from modelling them. They would be asked to comment critically on scenario plausibility, the model's underlying assumptions about causality and actor behaviour, and the model's scope. At the same time, stakeholders will be invited to create new scenarios for the model.

Pre-model engagement with stakeholders

D2.2 (almost complete) reviews the literature on stakeholder input to scenario development and formulating agent decision rules (Task 2.2.1). Participative techniques may be used for a number of functions including identifying a focal issue; defining how systems work and the driving forces behind them; and development of storylines and policy options. Stakeholder participation is likely to enhance the robustness of the subsequent scenarios and hypothetical actor behaviour.

As outlined in the previous section, a second round of interviews was conducted early in 2010 in relation to one specific case-study municipality per project partner, and the results are presented in D2.2. These interviews identified relevant policy issues and appropriate policy measures, and provide material for scenario development.

On-model engagement with stakeholders

A two day workshop was conducted in Montpellier, France in February 2010 which explored a range of participative methods suitable for on-model stakeholder engagement (Tasks 2.1.2 and 2.3.1). These included participative simulations; role-playing games, participative (conceptual) modelling, and interactive storytelling. The preferred method for use in PRIMA was interactive story telling for the purposes of: refining the pre-determined scenario, its scope and outcomes; checking the conceptual models, and improving and validating the computer models. This method is based on the generation of a framework for telling a story from simulation outcomes. Its main advantage is that more concrete elements are provided for generating discussion with stakeholders.

Significant results

The identification of appropriate stakeholders to participate in model development and validation is an important step in PRIMA. Some useful tools are offered by stakeholder analysis, by which the human landscape in which policies are enacted, or where firms operate, can be systematically described.

A useful starting point is a stakeholder map, whereby a policy is dissected into its component elements and processes, prior to relevant actors being mapped onto it. From the first maps drawn, we decided that two types of stakeholders are to be engaged in the participative processes. Firstly are the actors whose behaviour is to be represented in the agent based models. These stakeholders, have been selected in a three steps procedure: (i.) defining the policy, its effects, processes and boundaries. (ii). identifying the groups and

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
individuals who are affected by those social and natural systems , and (iii). prioritising those groups and individuals for involvement in the process.

Identifying key contacts has been achieved by starting with known contacts and then snowballing.

The second group is involved in policy scenario development and model output validation. It includes policy experts and practitioners who may also be conceptualised as stakeholders who represent the interests of civil society, on whose behalf they develop appropriate policies. One approach for policy scenario development is to attempt to mirror the group actually involved in formulating policy for the locality, although a final decision on the approach to be taken has not yet been reached. Either group will be involved in the onmodel stage (model improvement) next fall.

The scenarios developed in PRIMA have both quantitative and qualitative elements. The proposed method systematically follows 7 main steps.

1. Identify factors which shape the place including its endowments (e.g. land quality, accessibility, population size, planning constraints) and drivers of change. Also gain insight into agent behaviour (possible response to policy) to help design hypothetical policies.

2. Identify the focal issues which are perceived to be of greatest importance in the area and which future policy might address and have a measurable impact upon. In the context of PRIMA, only the impact of various EU policies is under consideration.

3. Identify a hypothetical policy response to reach a desired end point and appropriate measures.

4. Develop at least 2 storylines (future without policy change; future with hypothesised policy change). Agent behaviour will be included explicitly. Identify corresponding elements (variables, relationships) in the quantitative model and any underlying assumptions.

5. Validation of the storyline -plausibility of the assumption, actor behaviour and the outcome.

6. Final scenario consisting of a storyline and quantitative outputs from the modelling process.

Validation of the scenario (both quantitative and qualitative elements)

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 4. Where measures have been found inadequate, the reasons for expected failure.

5. Proposals for changes to existing measures, or proposals for new measures which are expected to achieve the Policy Outcome.

6. A comparison of the perceptions of the 2 stakeholder groups: do ‗institutional' people have a different perception of the priorities and the likely effectiveness of policies from ‗local' people?

7. A list of current policy measures which a) contributes to the delivery of the desired policy outcomes; and b) are thought to be effective; and also a list of ‗improved' and new policy measures suggested by interviewees. This list forms the starting point for the development of a draft storyline, including policy response and hypothesised agent behaviour, which will subsequently be modified in the light of discussions with stakeholders. (see above)

Deviations and proposed corrective actions

Some unexpected events, like the Regional elections in France delayed somehow the work (the stakeholders were not available for surveys during the preparation of these elections, or feared that the project would interfere with their programme). Thus, the first stage (pre-modelling) has been completed late in June. The second stage (on-model engagement) is planned for Autumn 2010.

1. M2.1.2, M2.1.3: Some stakeholders have been interviewed to obtain contextual information about regions and individual case study areas. However, identification of all stakeholders, and the compilation of a database of all relevant stakeholders will only be possible when the actual policy for study has been finalised. This may be accomplished using a policy map and interest-influence matrix, as described in D2.1. No impact on other tasks or resources is expected.

2. D2.3 is in progress, but late. Work on D2.3 was initiated by the workshop in Montpelier, and is expected to be completed at end-July 2010. No impact on other tasks or resources is expected.

WP3/WP4 | Agent Based Modelling and Generalisation of Prototypical dynamics

Work Packages 3 and 4 focus on the development of agent-based and microsimulation models and their use for the extraction of general rules to describe development dynamics of the studied regions. Initially, the micro-simulation model was expected to be applied only on a small set of pilot municipalities in WP3. Then, it was planned that WP4 would define simplified versions of these dynamics, to be extended to all rural municipalities of a region, based on available data. During this period of the project, we managed to design a common micro-simulation model for the municipalities which is used in WP3 and WP4 (see working papers ( 21) and ( 22)). We believe that it is a significant

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
achievement of the work period, which was not expected at the beginning of the project. This increased the interrelation between WP3 and WP4, which was already high. Therefore we think clearer to write a common progress report for these two work packages.

Objectives of WP3 and WP4:

1.

Design micro-simulation and agent based model framework, and implement it 2. Test the framework on pilot municipalities 3. Define a mapping between available data at municipality level and prototypical dynamics derived from the AB model developed in WP3 4. Evaluate the uncertainties on the results provided by the mapping 5. Implement a procedure of aggregating the results at region level, including the associated uncertainties.

Progress towards objective 1 (Design micro-simulation and agent based model framework, and implement it)

As first progress towards this objective, we performed an extensive literature review to look at the available frameworks and models that share concepts related to the PRIMA project (Deliverable 3.1 ( 13)). In addition, the survey contains an overview of the main actors and dynamics which are present in rural areas.

As a subsequent step, we developed the conceptual model of social-ecological dynamics. The focus of the model is on the population dynamics of rural municipalities and the decision making behaviour of actors of such areas. Output requirements from WP6 were considered as part of this modelling effort. This was followed by the implementation of the simulation framework prototype to be used for pilot simulations.

The development of the model was done using feedback obtained by regional stakeholders (work being coordinated on Work Package 2); by using the stakeholder feedback (such as the description of main issues in the municipalities, current state and future trends forecasted by stakeholders) to drive the definition of the aspects considered in the model.

A first implementation of the model has been completed. This implementation serves as a basis of the implementation of variants for each regional case study.

Progress towards objective 2 (Test the framework on pilot municipalities)

We are late on this objective because the model development took more time than expected. The main progress towards this objective concerns the generation of the populations of households.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Progress towards objective 3 (mapping between available data and dynamics of AB model)

First, the elaboration of the agent-based model led our view of this mapping to evolve. With the common model for WP3 and WP4, the problem of the mapping becomes: how to use the data available at municipality level to initialise and parameterise the model in all the rural municipalities of a region. This problem concerns each main variable of the model: population (households), activities of the inhabitants of the municipality, distribution of housing, distribution of land-use, main services and activities taking place on the municipality.

In this respect, the significant progresses for mapping to initialisation data are:

-We designed a general method for generating a population of households from a variety of generally available statistical data at municipality level. This method is original and led to a publication [START_REF] Turpin | Notes from Zagreb meeting[END_REF]. -

We mapped the initialisation of the land use using CORINE landcover (see working paper [START_REF] Iamo | Progress on the Initialization of Case Study Regions[END_REF]). -We used the available data in Auvergne to detect a variety of network structures between the municipalities (see working paper [START_REF] Cemagref | A Study of Municipalities Commuting Network Structures[END_REF]. This approach will help us to determine prototypical dynamics depending on these structures. We plan to study the model in details, on simplified data and on real data, in order to establish prototypical dynamics. These prototypical dynamics will probably include sets of municipalities, organised with particular network structures.

Progress towards objective 4: Evaluate uncertainties on the mapping

We evaluated some uncertainties of the method for generating the households. These uncertainties are evaluated on distributions which were not used in the process of generation. However, in the global objective of evaluating the uncertainties of the model dynamics, we are behind the schedule. This is due to the change of our modelling approach.

We plan now to evaluate the uncertainties of the model on the past data that we gathered. The idea is to initialise the model in 1990, and to check its predictions in further dates where data are available. This approach will be completed with sensitivity analyses of the model to different changes of parameters and initial data.

Progress towards objective 5: Implement a procedure of aggregating the results at region level

We developed a first prototype for visualising the different state variables of the model on a map. It is possible to get the aggregate values of the different variables of the model (variables describing the population, housing, landuse, services) for the chosen municipality, some subsets of municipalities or the global region. This prototype is developed using a data warehouse approach (see working paper ( 25)).

Significant results:

-Design and implementation of a common general micro-simulation model for WP3 and WP4 : initially, we planned to design a micro-simulation model to be applied on a set of municipalities, and then design simplified version of the dynamics extracted form the first model outcomes. Indeed, a common version of the model was finally developed, which is a major outcome of the project.

-Design of a general method for generating households from different available data at municipality level: at this level, only average data are available and the method enables to generate relevant individual data to be included in the models (led to a publication, see ( 8))

-Adaptation and implementation of the general model to the six case studies (see working paper [START_REF] Iamo | Progress on the Initialization of Case Study Regions[END_REF]), considering specificities in demography, productive activities, population dynamics, services and land. The generation of data used for the initialization of the micro-simulation is based on the same process which has been described by [START_REF] Turpin | Notes from Zagreb meeting[END_REF]. However, as this process was conceived for the generation data of a specific region, it considers some data sources that are not available in other regions. For this reason the algorithm has been modified in some cases, with the objective of using the data that is available for the adapted regions. After the generation of individuals and their household structure has been done, the next step in the adaptation of the model is the definition and distribution of the productive activities which describe the structure of the employment in the region. This step is completed first by defining the set of activities to consider in the model and then by distributing these activities, along with other employment information, to the previously generated individuals. Currently, the initialization of the synthetic population and their activities has been -First mapping of the model to the data available at municipality level, related to: household generation, land-use, services, to the six case studies

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref -First prototype for visualising the data at different type steps and different levels of aggregation based on data warehouse techniques.

Deviations from work programme

The main deviations are the following: -The development of a common model for WP3 and WP4, led to a closer coordination between WP3 and WP4 than initially planned (common meetings and visits). This yields a more powerful development due to a closer interaction between work packages. -

The development WP3 of simulations in pilot municipalities is delayed 3 to 4 months due to the delay on the development of the conceptual model and framework implementation (in part to workpackage coordination adjustments) and data availability, as data for some of the selected pilot regions has been available later than planned. -This shift in schedule affects the tasks related to the stakeholder validation of the pilot modelling framework and the acquisition of data from regional partners (Deliverable 3.3 and Milestone 3.4). -

In addition, due to the deviations from the work programme mentioned before, there is a delay in the detailed study of the model dynamics and evaluation of its uncertainties: we expect milestone 4.1 to be late of 6 months and deliverable 4.1 to be late of 3 to 4 months. -Milestone 4.2 is reached for the mapping of data with the initial state of the model (see [START_REF] Iamo | Progress on the Initialization of Case Study Regions[END_REF], but we need to complete it with the mapping of scenarios (this will be done in interaction with the stakeholders). -

We expect milestone 4.3 to be on time, and to be applied to all the case studies. -Our view of prototypical dynamics also changed in the course of the project. We find it more interesting to consider groups of municipalities and prototypical structures of their network. We believe that this option is more relevant than considering isolated municipalities. A distinction is made between external economic and demographic factors (e.g. economic growth, population trends, patterns of consumption and production) and policies (liberalisation of international trade through WTO, global agreements on biodiversity (CBD) and the control of greenhouse gas emissions (Kyoto), agricultural policy (CAP), etc.). Task 5.1 has been finished. A draft report is available as D5.1. A baseline has been developed as a background for the case studies. Additional policies may be implemented when they are relevant for the case studies or policy experiments.

WP5 | Aggregated modelling and compatibility checking

Task 5.2: Link IMAGE and GTAP to provide a working modelling framework supporting interactions between sectoral production growth rates, with the This part of the work package has not been started yet. Probably IAMO and CEMAGREF will have an import role in this part. This work has to wait till the multi-agent models are ready.

Task 5.5: Run SEAMLESS-IF and design a method to compare the aggregated outputs from AB models (task 4.3 and 4.4) with outputs and indicators from GTAP-IMAGE and SEAMLESS-IF.This part of the work package has not been started yet. CEMAGREF will take the lead in this. This work has to wait till the multi-agent models are ready.

Significant results

See above. A baseline scenario has been developed as an implicit background for the regional studies and case studies. Its purpose is to have a plausible development of the world population and economy. The assumptions are defined at the level of the LEITAP/IMAGE model as used in this project, where the economic developments of most EU-countries are modelled explicitly and the rest of the world is divided into regions that contain groups of countries. The main drivers are population, technological change, and the depletion of some important natural resources like crude oil. The available physical area is also included explicitly in the model. All other factors are determined by mechanisms in the model, where the model guarantees consistency across sectors and countries. For the baseline we assume a minimum number of changes.

The baseline takes the USDA projections of population and GDP as a starting point. Crude oil production projections are based on IEA projections, while land productivity projections are based indirectly on FAO projections. The distribution of technological change is based on a historical study about differences in productivity growth between different sectors.

Last, in the past LEITAP and IMAGE have been coupled as an interactive process. This didn't work out correctly, and seemed overly complicated. For

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref this reason the coupling has been simplified a lot. The coupling is now a one way process. First, a land supply curve is calibrated for LEITAP based on information from IMAGE. Second, information from IMAGE about the differences in productivity from different grid cells and the way IMAGE allocates land to these grid cells, a correction factor for LEITAP is derived and implemented that corrects for the difference between marginal and average productivity. Working paper -Screening impacts of EU policies on rural areas‖ (M8) was done including the discussion of the essential aspects for PRIMA. A report is available. An update is planned at month 30 by including further methodological developments in sciences and experiences in PRIMA. M 6.2 Impact Assessment Workshops (planned in M9) was held on M11 (after the summer holidays) in Dortmund. A report on -Theory and methodology of impact assessment in PRIMA in the context of SIA, SEA and EIA‖ is available. M 6.4 Matrix of geocompatible database (M12). A draft is available. The report will be updated at month 32, when the outputs of PRIMA in form of model results and indicators are available. D 6.2 Working paper -Impact indicators to scope policy impacts to stakeholder involvement‖ (M15). The working paper is available.

Deviations and proposed corrective actions

Progress towards the PRIMA WP 6 Objectives

Aim of the WP is the enhancement of IA methodology in the fields of screening, scoping and assessment. Indicators of the three main dimensions of sustainability (economic, social and environmental) for rural areas are extracted for the usage in PRIMA. The general methodological and theoretical discussion about the scaling down of policy impacts of the economic and land uses activities, with regard on potential results of ABM, aggregated models, policy analysis and stakeholder participation and Impact Assessment approaches is done.

Progress of the three main objectives of WP 6 was done (1) to discuss how to translate the transformed outputs of WP3, WP 4 and WP 5 into comparable indicators (D 6.2); (2) to structure the impact assessment analysis (D 6.2) and (3) to enhance IA methodologies (D 6.1 report, M 6.2 report. The methodological basis to confront PRIMA outputs to criteria defining the screening and the scope of SIA, SEA and EIA guidelines is available now.

Progress towards the PRIMA WP 6 Tasks

Task 6.1: Theory and methodology on SIA, SEA and EIA). A review of literature and theory on impact assessment analysis with special emphasis on ecosystem and biodiversity functionalities in SIA, SEA and EIA and recent ongoing EU-projects is applied in the reports on M 6.1 and D 6.1. The review on SIAT will be updated during the project run according to the availability of results of those projects (D 6.1). The Screening methodologies and the identification of the most important impacts EU policies are analysed by WP 1 and are confronted with the essential impacts in terms of IA (D 6.2). A workshop about -theory and methodology of impact assessment in PRIMA in the context of SIA, SEA and EIA‖ was organized in Dortmund (M 6.2). Task 6.4: Screening and scoping. Screening analysis was done (in WP 1) to list measures proposed for inclusion into IA because of potential significant impacts on sustainability. Main aspects of screening and scooping are methodologically integrated in the D 6.1 and D 6.2 reports. The full methodology for screening and scoping is content of the Impact matrix methods (M28) and also of the update of D 6.1 report. The handbook of efficient recommendations D 6.4 will include the methodological advances of the PRIMA approach (M34). Task 6.6: Elaboration of GEO-compatible databases with all data from the project is planned in M 35 (D 6.6). The draft of M 6.4 is available.

Significant results

-The main methodological outcomes from the Dortmund workshop were (i) the choice of the indicators of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) as a suitable basis to confront the local and regional outputs to the Nuts 2/3 level and the rural development, (ii) the linkage between CMEF and SIA based on thresholds for each indicator and (iii) the confirmation of the relevance of the impact matrix methodology to -translate‖ changes of agent behaviours to impact assessment for Multi Agent simulations and aggregated models.

-Regarding scaling down of the policy impacts, it has been demonstrated that the missing links between SIA and policies' impacts assessment and CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref prognosis of potential impacts can be seen on the local and regional scale level in the clarification of the policies' impacts; Effects are seen from the general change to the formulation of programmes or plans of investments, on the regional level carried out by the competent authorities to the projects funding and application of the projects by the local actors. In close cooperation with WPs 1, 3 and 4, WP6 provided a balanced list of impact indicators to the local scale.

-Beyond the results mentioned here before those related to indicators deserve a specific development. A classification of land use changes has been defined as a differentiation of land use into -extensive‖ and -intensive‖ to differentiate and to deepen the application to land uses with negative/positive impact on -water quality‖, -erosion‖, -Natura 2000/Biodiversity‖, -extensive agriculture‖, -forest structure‖ and -Tourism infrastructure in rural areas‖.

-Moreover, the methodological approach to reach the translation of the different model outputs into indicators for the usage in Sustainable Impact Assessment has been achieved. It includes the output analysis (i) by a checklist to describe Impact Assessment indicators in PRIMA in a comparable way (e.g. for the description of the data used in each case study region) and (ii) a proposal for the thresholds definition and their use. The methodological approach to combine data and thresholds via impact matrix methods to assess the policy impacts (positive, neutral, negative) is content of the following year. The approach has been built to be applied on from Nuts 2 to Lau 1 scale level.

Deviations and proposed corrective actions

No major deviations from Annex I and their impact on other tasks as well as on available resources and planning occurred. Because of reasons of financial contracting WP6 (Partner TU Dortmund) started with 2 month delay at 1st of January 2009. The later start has not impacted essential delays in the work progress. For D 6.1 and M 6.4, it was decided to update the available drafts following the methodological progress in PRIMA. No major corrective actions are needed.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Consortium management tasks and achievements

The Consortium management activities have been organised in consistency with the DoW: -administrative and financial project management scientific coordination dissemination and exploitation of the results

According to the DOW, a steering committee, composed of representatives of each institution, helps for management and scientific dissemination (cf table 7).

Administration of the Community financial contribution

All the payments have been allocated in due course to the different partners. All financial data related to payments are recorded in a specific account table in Cemagref.

Each partner assumes its own internal procedure for archiving expense documents.

Consortium agreement

The consortium agreement has been grantedT P F 4 FP T , agreed and signed by all partners participating on the project.

Project report templates and procedure

Project reporting templates have been designed at the beginning of the project and are available for all partners. They concern deliverables and milestones. Templates were proposed by the coordination for timesheets as well. All partners have agreed on the use of mandatory records, with each beneficiary relying on its own.

Reports revision process

According to the management plan, all reports (deliverables and milestones) have been delivered with the acceptance of the relevant WP leader, reviewed by the scientific coordinator and then checked by the coordinator. After validation, final documents have been uploaded in the part of the website dedicated to deliverables.

The organisation of results for presentation and publication is managed by the WPs leaders.

Communication with the PRIMA scientific officer

All requests from the Community Scientific Officer (i.e. communication strategy) have been satisfied in due time.

Integration between WPs

The coordinator has established a mailing list for the project members to facilitate communication (discussions, negotiations and decision making) through electronic mails. Due to the highly pluri-disciplinary nature of the project, some scientists have been in frequent communication to interoperate approaches and methods. In addition, WP leaders spent short periods in each other's institutions in order to learn specific methodological aspects or to organize local interviews meetings (eg. IAMO -> Cemagref; TUDo -> IAMO).

Meetings' organisation: following the kick-off meeting held in Brussels, meetings have been organized in partnership with the concerned institution (ie. UNWE, AFSZ, UZEI), involving a scientific part, a study site visit and meet-

Advisory board

According to the DoW, an advisory board has been set up at the beginning of the project. Its role is to assist the consortium for the scientific development and dissemination actions. The board is composed of two well recognised scientists, whose expertises cover the main scientific fields of the rationale of PRIMA.

Pr Advisors were invited during the project meeting, and the PRIMA partners did their best to follow their advices. At M6, main comments and advices were the following:

-Guaranty for success: the project has a lot of prerequisites, from each the software are close to be running, clear view on how RuG and Cemagref blocks are going to be integrated in the core model (Comments taken into account) -To have in mind that stakeholders may influence greatly the modelling framework, maybe if the modellers propose class-objects that the stakeholders could choose to use or not. (Comments taken into account) -Suggestion to provide a toy model that will be build within the next months may be the basis for a "half-automatic factory" of models. (started but took more time than initially planned: the work effort was put WP3/WP4 integration) -Some differences in framing between the different packages, but opinions should converge, especially on share understanding on multifunctionality and on the consequences of the policy scenarios. The bigger the understanding, the easier it will be for the modellers. In the models, what you put in strongly condition what you get out: modelling the trade-offs between commodity and non-commodity outputs is a challenge. Close cooperation is needed. (inter WP meetings have been organized) At M18, main comments and advices were:

--Similar to a FP project led by one adviser, where all building blocks were more or less well prepared by midterm, but nothing was really con-CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref nected. From experience, PRIMA will succeed in putting all the building blocks together. Some of them will have to be slightly reshaped in order to fit them smoothly together, but project advances showed that this is possible. (The Clermont-Ferrand meeting, involving case study leaders and modelling teams in may-june 2010, addressed these concerns) -Guess to have some more meetings between the regional teams and the modelling teams, and these meetings will be something much like the discussion between project members and stakeholders, and these discussions will have to be planned once first running regional models are available -which will be the main task of the third project year. (idem.) -Case studies are interesting, but need a step towards more concrete work and links between the case studies and models. (idem.)

Co-operation with other projects

As planned in the DoW, Cemagref -as coordinator -has signed a contract with the SEAMLESS association, for the use of the SEAMLESS licence (convention; meeting in 2010). Cemagref is now part of the SEAMLESS association, who is favourable to common model development.

One member of the coordination team attended the final conference of the SENSOR FP6 project ('User Forum for Sustainability Impact Assessment Tools Land Use: Risk, Transparency and Integration', April 22-23, 2009, Brussels, Belgium). A WP leader of SENSOR attended a PRIMA WP6 meeting.

5.2 Problems which have occurred and how they were solved or envisaged solutions;

A mistake was discovered for the planning of WP6 work: the initial delivery date of D6.1 (M8) was deemed too early for the work to really benefit from the outputs of WP3/4/5. In accordance with our scientific officer, a shortened draft version was issued on time, to be completed on M24.

Changes in the consortium, if any;

Under new WP leaders: WP2, 3, 5. Two WP leaders (WP2, WP3) have left their institutions and one (WP5) has wished to be stood in. After formal exchanges with the three concerned institutions and without any difficulty, three scientists (already involved at the beginning of the project) have accepted to play a WP leading role.

Change in the grant agreement: Scientists from LEI are technically employed by another entity called Stichting DLO, the Commission wants this entity to be explicitly mentioned as a subcontractor in the grant. This modification had no effect on the workloads or endowments of PRIMA partners.

Change in scientist: Three scientists left their institutions in PBL, IAMO and UNEW: they were replaced by scientists with the same fields of expertise.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Project planning and status;

Some activities were postponed or delayed. Consequently, some deliverables and milestones were not accomplished as planned, hopefully with no significant impact to the progress of the programme.

Delays have been caused by a change in the concepts of the models: instead of developing a first model (wp3), then to wait for is outputs to develop the WP4 model, both have been designed in close cooperation. Such a large change is not supposed to occur in the second period of the project.

Of course, overuse of time in the first period will not impede time allocation on the second period. Thus, the original amount of work planned for the next tasks is still accurate. However, the project interaction between teams and case studies works well: several working meetings have been organised, and will be planned to coordinate the working effort so that no delay should occur. The main discussions and reporting events have been carefully scheduled till the end of the project: Nov 2010 for the first on-model tests with stakeholders for example, leading to improvements of the models.

5.6 Impact of possible deviations from the planned milestones and deliverables, if any;

See comments in the ‗scientific achievements' part ( § X 3.1.4X ) and deliverables / milestones' tables (X 4.1X & X 4.2X ).

5.7 Any changes to the legal status of any of the beneficiaries, in particular non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education establishments, research organisations and SMEs;

PBL experienced a merger and are now identified as a subdepartment of the Ministerie Van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening En Milieubeheer.

The beneficiary remained a non-profit public bodies, but the cost method was modified (actual indirect)

Development of the Project website, if applicable;

As described in D0.2, the PRIMA website fulfils a triple objective: (i) a communication tool for the general public and the stakeholders involved in the research process; (ii) a repository for the public deliverables, milestones and related publications of the project; (iii) a collaborative tool for the members of the project. Granted with passwords, PRIMA members, scientific advisers and EU reviewers have access to the collaborative space where, depending on their editing rights, they can read, modify, submit and publish files.

The website was operational at the beginning of the project. Due to the scarcity of available deliverables and research outputs in the first steps of the pro-CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ject, the external traffic has remained rather modest but is on a steady rise, reaching 400 unique visitors per month in mid-2010 (with 20 000 hits and a bandwidth of 500 MB as monthly averages).

Share dissemination documents

-Flyer: For general information about the project, a 4-pages flyer has been set up. 500 copies will be attributed in the next weeks to PRIMA scientist, to be used in all scientific or any other events they will participate. This flyer will be also sent to specific target communities by Email.

-Presentation support: A general PRIMA PowerPoint, presenting an overview of the project, was also made available for PRIMA members.

-Newsletter: The initially planned newsletter was replaced, for efficiency matters, by another media with a wide audience including science and policy actors. The participation, in the form of an editorial article of 3 in the International Innovation Report (report distributed to 39 000 readers across the whole of Europe, including member states, candidate countries, associated and INCO countries) was considered and validated by the coordination (publication during summer). The next newsletter including most salient results will be delivered in accordance with the DoW and the Dissemination plan -Participation to the FP7 communication strategy: on Request of the Commission for FP7 external communication strategy, a A4 page factsheet of PRIMA was provided.

-Poster: A PRIMA poster, presented in a conference [START_REF] Turpin | Prototypical Policy Impacts on Multi-functional Activities in rural municipalities[END_REF], was provided for use by all partners. It outlines the objectives, structure, partnership, methods and expected results.

-Newspaper article: One press interview (Mario Njavro/ Ramon Laplana) by a Croatian regional newspaper: communication about the objectives of the local trip/meeting, the aims of the PRIMA project and the importance of the Istrian case study for the project.

Meetings with local stakeholders

As part of WP1/2 activities, meetings have involved local/regional stakeholder. Czech Republic: manager of the ‗Local Action Group' (covering the ‗mikroregion' Strážnicko) and mayor of the municipality of Tvarozna Lhota. Topics covered: (i) Regional development dynamics, as well as the past and actual projects designed to comply to EU cohesion aims; (ii) Viewpoint on the strengths and weaknesses of the region, as well as on how the municipality is acting in relation to the structural funds. The total effort within the first reporting period is, for all partners excepted P1, more or less what was initially planned for this phase. Concerning Cemagref (P1), a large discrepancy is acknowledged between the estimated and actual effort. It is due to: (i) Policy analysis: as mentioned, the review of the EU policies and documents on national and regional level took more time than initially planned; (ii) Clusterisation/ data collection effort: specific methodological developments were taken by Cemagref teams; (iii) Organization of meetings: internal WP2 (Montpellier, 2010) and WP3/4 (Clermont-Ferrand, 2009/2010) meetings, not planned in the DoW, were deemed necessary and organized by Cemagref teams. As mentioned before, overuse of time in the first period will not impede time allocation on the second period. Thus, the original amount of work planned for the next tasks is still accurate. Cf. § 5.5 for details

EXPLANATION OF THE US E OF THE RESOURCES

T 5 .T 9 T 2 : 12 T 13 T 4 : 17 T 5 : 19 T 6 : 23 T 7 :

 59212134175196237 9T T Use of foreground and dissemination activities during this period (if applicable).T .......................................................................................................... 46 T 6T T Explanation of the use of the resourcesT ..................................... 51 T 7T T Project effort: planned/actualT .................................................. 55 T 8T T Financial statements -Form C and Summary financial reportT . 56 T 9T T CertificatesT ...............................................................................57 T ReferencesT ....................................................................................... 61 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D0.3 | 24/11Figure 1 : main modelling steps in the PRIMA project, including completes ones (green) and nearly completed ones (light green)T .......................................................................................... Figure Presentation of Prima objectives in Istria (Zagreb meeting)T .................................. Figure 3 : database conceptual scheme for the Auvergne modelT ............................................ Figure Potential impacts of the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) on multifunctionality indicators, broken down in economic / social / environmental domainsT .............................. Figure Combined impacts of selected driving forces (external/internal), for the four scenariosT ................................................................................................................................... Figure Scenario development combining participatory methods and computer modellingT .................................................................................................................................................. Figure Monthly traffic of the PRIMA websiteT ....

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2 : Presentation of Prima objectives in Istria (Zagreb meeting)

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3 : database conceptual scheme for the Auvergne model

  -WP2: identification of stakeholders and stakeholder roles, Pre-model engagement with stakeholders and to a lesser extent on-model engagement with stakeholders. -WP3-4: Design micro-simulation and agent based model framework, and implement it, test the framework on pilot municipalities, and define a mapping between available data at municipality level and prototypical dynamics derived from the AB model developed in WP3. -WP5: Identify key economic and demographic factors at European and global level, and link GTAP and IMAGE to provide a working modelling framework. -WP6: review the theory on impact assessment analysis with a special emphasis on ecosystem and biodiversity functionalities in SIA, EIA, SEA, identify a balanced list of potential impact indicators for ecologic, economic and social impacts to qualify land use change and agents behaviors provided by WP3. -interactions between WPs: build a common culture on scenarios to be introduced into the models (WP1-3-5), exchange concepts on impact indicators, prepare in-between WPs the stakeholders interactions.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4 : Potential impacts of IPA on multifunctionality indicators, broken down in economic / social / environmental domains Economic Social Environment

3. 4 . 1

 41 Progress towards the PRIMA WP 5 Tasks Task 5.1: Identify key economic and demographic factors at European and global level driving land use patters at regional and local scales.

CemOA : archive ouverteTask 5 . 4 :

 54 d'Irstea / Cemagref use, productivity and intensity of land from GTAP and the demand for land and environmental indicators from the IMAGE model. Task 5.2 has been finished. A draft report is available as D5.2. Task 5.3: Develop a working regional economic model that interacts between global changes (GTAP-IMAGE interactions) and multi-agent based tool at local level. It covers activities agriculture, forestry, services and nature. A start has been made with a program for downscaling. We are working on a procedure to generate the basic regional data for the input. We have to start data generation and theoretical and empirical work to improve on the allocation procedures of national developments to regions. The division of work for this task has to made yet. Probably a combination of LEI, PBL and UMB. Interact land use patterns at a range of scales and interact with multi-agent based modelling. Based on existing calculations, we will develop land demand to quantify land use changes. Assess compatibility of key drivers and land use patterns at a range of scales.

None 3 . 5

 35 WP6 | Improvement of Impact AssessmentThe work progress in Milestones and Deliverables in temporal order: M 6.1 Working list of Indicators (M5) was done in time. A report is available. D 6.1

  CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D0.3 | 24/11/2010 Periodic Report 31/69

  CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D0.3 | 24/11(excluding the periodic and final reports)

T P 3 PT

 3 Name of the deliverable has been change because the old one was completely unrelated to the current state of the deliverable. Old name: Working paper on pilot case implementation and exemplary simulations and protocol for stakeholder interaction with models based on pilot case study CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

CemOA : archive ouverte

  d'Irstea / Cemagref Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D0.3 | 24/11/2010 Periodic Report 40/69

Figure 7 :

 7 Figure 7 : Monthly traffic of the PRIMA website

Table 1 :

 1 Deliverables for WP0

	Del. no.	Deliverable name	WP no.	Lead beneficiary	Nature	Dissemination	level	Delivery date from	Annex I	Delivered	Yes/No	Actual / Forecast	delivery date	Comments
		Definition of the pre-
		liminary project plan
		including quality assur-
	D 0.1	ance, common formats;	0	P1	R	CO	M2	Yes	M3
		Scientific project plan;
		Dissemination project
		plan
	D 0.2	Project web site	0	P1	O	CO/P U	M5	Yes
	D 0.3	Intermediary report	0	P1	R	PU	M19	Yes	M20

Table 2 :

 2 Deliverables for WP1

	Del. no.	Deliverable name	WP no.	Lead beneficiary	Nature	Dissemination	level	Delivery date from	Annex I	Delivered	Yes/No	Actual / Forecast	delivery date	Comments	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
		Working papers -Critical
		analysis and assessment
		of EU policy on multi-
		functional land use ac-
		tivities on national and
	D 1.1	regional level‖ / -Identi-fying driving forces and	1	P3	R	CO/P U	M7	Yes	M20
		trends of their develop-
		ment at EU, national
		and regional level for
		Multifunctional land
		uses activities‖
		Assessing capacity gaps
	D 1.2	in the demand and supply side of resources, institutions and legisla-	1	P3	R	CO/P U	M9	Yes	M20
		tion
		Working paper -Socio-
	D 1.3	economic characteristics of case study sites (re-gions and LAU's) and	1	P3	R	CO/P U	M12	Yes	M20	draft
		alternative scenarios for

Table 3 :

 3 Deliverables for WP2

	Del. no.	Deliverable name	WP no.	Lead beneficiary	Nature	Dissemination	level	Delivery date	from Annex I	Delivered	Yes/No	Actual / Forecast	delivery date	Comments
		Identifying and charac-
		terising stakeholders
	D 2.1	and their roles in pre,	2	P6	R	CO	M3	Yes	M10
		on-and post-model
		analyses
		Elucidating stakeholder
		perspectives with re-
	D 2.2	gards to scenario design and formulating agent	2	P6	R	CO/P U	M8	No	M20	draft
		decision rules: Metho-
		dologies & Results
	D 2.3	Elucidating stakeholder perspectives with re-gards to agent-based model development: Methodologies & Results	2	P6	R	CO/P U	M15	No	M21	late, but no impact on the rest of the project

Table 4 :

 4 Deliverables for WP3

	Del. no.	Deliverable name	WP no.	Lead beneficiary	Nature	Dissemination	level	Delivery date from	Annex I	Delivered	Yes/No	Actual / Forecast de-	livery date	Comments
		Working paper -A review
	D 3.1	of literature and actors and interaction patterns	3	P7	R	CO/P U	M3	Yes	M8
		in rural areas‖
		Working papers: -A ge-
		neric agent architecture
	D 3.2	for formalising agents in rural areas‖; -A concep-tual model on social-	3	P7	R	CO/P U	M8	Yes	M12
		ecological dynamics in
		rural areas‖
	D 3.3	Adaptation of Micro-Simulation Model to PRIMA Study RegionsT P F 3 FP T 3	P7	R	CO/P U	M15	yes		M20	change in name

Table 5 :

 5 Deliverables for WP4, 5 and 6

	Del. no.	Deliverable	name	WP no.	Lead benefi-	ciary	Nature	Dissemination	level	Delivery date	from Annex I	Delivered	Yes/No	Actual / Fore-	cast delivery	date	Comments
	D 4.1	Working paper on proto-typical dynamics and their mapping	4	P1	R	CO	M18	No	M23		Delay in the detailed study of the model dynamics
		Framework and listing
		of key economic and
		demographic factors at
		European and global
	D5.1	level driving land use patterns at a range of	5	P5	R	CO/P U	M15	Yes	M20
		scales; and technical and
		methodological assess-
		ment of their compati-
		bility
		Linkage of IMAGE and
		GTAP, providing a work-		P5
	D5.2	ing modelling frame-	5			P	CO	M18	Yes	M20
		work for aggregated
		modelling
																	Draft version
	D 6.1	Working paper -Screen-ing impacts of EU poli-cies on rural areas‖	6	P2	R	CO/P U	M8	Yes		M12		to be updated till month 24; agreement of PRIMA scien-
																	tific officer
	D 6.2	Working paper -Impact indicators to scope policy impacts to stakeholder involvement‖	6	P2	R	CO/ PU	M15	Yes	M12

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D0.3 | 24/11/2010

Table 6 :

 6 Milestones

	Milestone	no.	Milestone name	Work package no	Lead beneficiary	Delivery date from	Annex I	Achieved	Yes/No	Actual / Forecast	achievement date	Comments
	M 0.1	Agreement on work plan	0	P1	M1	Yes	M3
	M 0.2	Update workplan and schedule	0	P1	M12	No			No change in the schedule, so no updated
												workplan
			Agreement on dis-
	M 0.3	semination proce-	0	P1	M1	Yes	M2
			dure
	M 0.4 M 0.5 M 1.1 M 1.2	Project Web site structure PRIMA meetings Identified key issues of national and re-gional strategic and planning documents on multifunctional land uses activities Identified factors having influence on driving forces and trends for future development at EU, national and regional levels	0 0 1 1	P1 P1 P3 P3	M1 M1, M7, M13 M6 M5	Yes Yes Yes Yes	M4 M1, M8, M13,M18 M10 M12	Amended March 2010	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	M 1.3	Identified key prob-lems in institutions, legislation, supply	1	P3	M12	Yes	M12	Amended March 2010
			and demand side
			Set of criteria devel-
			oped for area identi-
	M 1.4	fication (below NUTS 3) in respect of com-	1	P3	M11	Yes	M13
			parability between
			country data sets
	M 2.1.1		Asses state-of-the-art fication in stakeholder identi-	2	P6	M1	Yes	M11	Reading notes
												currently being
												compiled and
	M 2.1.2	Database of all rele-vant stakeholders	2	P6	M2,M14	No	M22	will be completed when the actual policy
												for study has
												been finalised

Table 7 :

 7 Steering committee composition

	WP0 and site manager	Ramon Laplana and Nadine Turpin	Cemagref
	WP1 and site manager	Diana Kopeva	UNWE
	WP2 and site manager	Marian Raley	UNEW
	WP3 and site manager	Omar Baqueiro	IAMO
	WP4	Guillaume Deffuant	Cemagref
	WP5	Geert Woltjer	LEI
	WP6	Burghard Meyer	TUDo
	Site manager	Ladislav Jelinek	UZEI
	Site manager	Mario Njavro	AFSZ
	UMB representative	Eirik Romstad	UMB
	PBL representative	Arno Bouwman	PBL
	RuG representative	Wander Jager	RuG

  In the Bulgarian case study, representatives of national bodies have also been met: head of ‗rural development' division / Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, head of ‗European Integration' division / Ministry of Environment and Water, as well as other national experts.

	During the visits associated with project meetings, the following stakeholders
	exchanged with the attendees:
	Croatia: Director of the Istria Agency for Rural Development
	(H http://www.azrri.hr/H ). Topics covered: (i) Local economic activities, their
	structure and the main development issues they raise; (ii) Istria rural devel-
	opment strategy: leader approach, trans-border cooperation, role of local ac-
	tion groups, integration between different development programmes (focus

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref on irrigation and infrastructures); (iii) Discussion on local breeds, conservation programmes, development programmes, local products.

TABLE 3 .

 3 1 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR CEMAGREF FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP0, 1, 2, 3, 4,	Personnel	463 739,62 Personnel costs
	6	costs
	WP0, 1, 2, 3, 4,	Remaining	34 321,34 Travel and subsistence expenses, consumables,
	6	direct costs	meetings registration fees, translation, meetings
			organisation expenses
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 498 060,96
	TABLE 3.2 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR
	TUDo FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010
	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP0,1, 2, 3, 6 Personnel	64 859,66 Salaries of working package leader and student
		costs	assistant for the first project reporting period
	WP6	Remaining	4 780,89 Travel expenses, Impact assessment workshop in
		direct costs	Dortmund, Coordination
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	69 640,55

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

TABLE 3 .

 3 3 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR UNWE FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP0, 1, 2, 3, 6 Personnel	49 099,08 Honoraria under Civil Contracts of the
		costs	Partner Project Coordinator (Manage-
			ment) for 18 months each
			Honoraria under Civil Contracts of 5 re-
			searchers in total for 11 man months
			Honoraria under Civil Contracts of 3 re-
			searchers in total for 2.5 man months
			Honoraria under Civil Contracts of 1 re-
			searcher in total for 1 man month
			Honoraria under Civil Contracts of 1 re-
			searcher in total for 1 man month
	WP0, 1, 2, 3, 6 Remaining	9 049,68 Travel and subsistence: Kick-off meeting
		direct costs	in Brussels -2 people; Meeting under
			WP6,Dortmund -3 people; Annual project
			meeting, Zagreb -4 people; Meeting in
			Brno -2 people
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	58 148,76

TABLE 3 .

 3 4 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR UMB FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP1, 5	Personnel	10 290,70 Personnel costs
		costs
	WP1, 5	Remaining	2 739,56 Travel and subsistence
		direct costs

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 13 030,26

TABLE 3 .

 3 5 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR DLO FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP2, 5	Personnel	45 380,59 Personnel costs
		costs
	WP5	Remaining	4 399,20 Travel and subsistence expenses
		direct costs	(NB: conflated with Personnel Costs in the
			online Form C)
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	49 779,79

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

TABLE 3 .

 3 6 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR UNEW FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP0, 1, 2	Personnel	45 961,62 Costs for Marian Raley (WP2 leader), Guy Gar-
		costs	rod and Lee Stapleton to participate in WP2 and
			WP1 activities
	WP0, 1, 2	Remaining	9 566,12 Costs for team members attending Prima meet-
		direct costs	ings (Brussels, Sofia, Zagreb and Brno) and for
			collection of data for WP1 and WP2 (including
			accommodation and travel where interviews
			were required)
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	55 527,74

TABLE 3 .

 3 7 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR IAMO FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010 Personnel costs 106 585,11 Personnel Costs for 1 researcher with 19.27 PM; for 1 researcher with 3.78 PM; for 1 researcher with 1.41 PM and for 1 researcher with 0.44 PM

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
	5, 6
	WP0, 1, 2, 3, 4,	Remaining	5 867,29 Travel costs
	5, 6	direct costs
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	112 452,40

TABLE 3 .

 3 8 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR RuG FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP3	Personnel	44 654,03 Salaries of PhD and project leader for 18 months
		costs	each
	WP3	Remaining	3 664,09 Project meetings at Brussels, Sofia, Clermont-
		direct costs	Ferrand, Brno and Guildford
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	48 318,12

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

TABLE 3 .

 3 12 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR AFSZ FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP1, 2, 3, 4	Personnel	19 608,65 Personnel cost based on the activities
		costs	recorded in the timesheet and hourly
			rates. Activities include organisation
			and data collection, data analysis,
			communication, reporting, dissemina-
			tion.
	WP1, 2, 3, 4	Remaining	6 222,62 Travel, Participation on the project's
		direct costs	meeting (Sofia, Montpellier, Brno) and
			travels to Istria
			Brussels (kick-off): 1018,27 €
			Sofia: 2109,61 €
			Montpellier 991,73 €
			Brno: 793,50 €
			Istra (total): 1309,51 €
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	25 831,27

TABLE 3 .

 3 13 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR PBL FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP1, 5, 6	Personnel	4 878,09 102,5 h
		costs
	WP1, 5, 6	Remaining	1 888,48 Travel, hotel and daily allowance
		direct costs
	WP1	Personnel	761,50 Personnel cost (associated with the
		costs NOT	kick-off meeting in Brussels) are NOT
		declarable	declarable because in 2008 no data
			was entered on a timesheet. The costs
			are NOT calculated in the total costs.
			Travelling costs for Brussels though
			are calculated.
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	6 766,57

TABLE 3 .

 3 15 PERSONNEL, SUBCONTRACTING AND OTHER MAJOR DIRECT COST ITEMS FOR UZEI FOR THE PERIOD 1 NOVEMBER 2008 -30 APRIL 2010 the following table:-P months are the persons month planned in the DOW for the total duration of the project -A months are the actual persons month for the first reporting period

	Work Package	Item de-scription	Amount Explanation
	WP1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Personnel	16 705,00 Share of salaries of 4 researchers,
		costs	(permanent staff) and 3 Junior re-
			searchers (of 1 student, 1 postdoctoral
	WP1, 2, 3, 4, 6 Remaining	9 261,00 Travel expenses of six meetings and
		direct costs	workshop. The organisation of interna-
			tional workshop meeting in region
			South Moravia, Brno, 26.-29.3.2010
	TOTAL DIRECT COSTS	25 966,00

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

In

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Contract no. 212345 | Deliverable no. D0.

ings with local stakeholders. The minutes of these meeting are available on the web site for all partners to access. The collaborative space set up as an internal part of the PRIMA website (Cf. below) was dedicated to internal project discussion and exchanges. Several tools, including Wiki pages were proposed to and tested by PRIMA partners EU Database acquisition: on the behalf of the consortium (mostly WP3/WP4 modellers) the coordinator negotiated with Eurostat (ECHP database). A copy of Cemagref's signed certificate on the financial statements (Form C) is included in the nine following pages of this section.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref