Printer Friendly

Farming for a Better Climate (FarmClim): design of an inter- and transdisciplinary research project aiming to address the "science-policy gap".

Successful optimisation measures for agriculture that increase productivity while at the same time decreasing environmental impacts ask for close interactions and communication of diverse stakeholders. How can transdisciplinary research meet the challenge? In its project design, FarmClim actively involves stakeholders as equal partners from the very beginning.

Efforts of a number of European countries to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions following the Kyoto protocol obligations have not met expectations. This is also the case for Austria, where an agreed emission reduction of 13 percent between the base year 1990 and the commitment period (2008 to 2012) is contrasted by an observed increase of 19 percent between 1990 and 2010 (NIR 2012). Both policy (BMLFUW 2007) and science (Winiwarter et al. 2009) have suggested concrete sets of measures that would allow a reduction of emissions.

In practice, economic decisions primarily follow an economic rationale. Disregarding ecological perspectives does not necessarily indicate malevolence on the side of economic stakeholders, but more often may derive from the difficulty to comprehend which concrete measures would lead to the desired results, or from measures that are not applicable for a specific situation.

Proposed measures then may be implemented at a degree much smaller than expected. This is commonly termed the "science-policy gap" (Sebek 1983). Using the agricultural sector as an example, the project Farming for a Better Climate (FarmClim) intends to close this gap. The project was designed to develop and describe, for the sector of agriculture, measures for GHG abatement and for the increase of nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). (1) These measures are evaluated both from the perspective of the extension service and of the scientists involved. We expect that direct interaction between industry stakeholders and scientists, which characterises the inter- and transdisciplinary element of the work, will allow identification of co-benefits of measures that would concurrently increase NUE and improve the economic situation of farms.

To begin with, we establish the scientific background and problem area of agricultural GHG emission and NUE. Then, we describe the project concept and the project team as well as discuss the advantages and the shortcomings related to this structure. Finally, we conclude on the mode of collaboration and point towards some of the expected outcomes of the project.

Problem Description

Globally, human activity has doubled the amount of available "reactive nitrogen", the form of nitrogen accessible to organisms. This is largely a result of mineral fertilizer production, fertilizer application, fossil-fuel burning, and increased livestock and manure production (Galloway et al. 2004, 2008). Released to the environment, reactive nitrogen contributes to local and global problems (Sutton et al. 2011 b, a), affecting human health and ecosystem services as well as contributing to climate change. (2)

Agriculture takes responsibility for a large share of nitrogen release, in form of nitrate leaching or gaseous release of ammonia (N[H.sub.3]), nitrous oxide ([N.sub.2]O) and nitric oxide (NO). [N.sub.2]O worldwide mainly comes from soils (Nortcliff 2009). In Austria four percent of GHG emissions in 2010 derive from soil emanations of [N.sub.2]O (NIR 2012), and a similar share from methane (C[H.sub.4]) emissions in animal husbandry. Efforts to reduce negative environmental effects from agriculture have been successful in parts. Following data of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008), the NUE has improved over the last 20 years in many European countries, including Austria. Much of this improvement derives from legislation introduced, changed stocking rates, organic farming, as well as from improved practices such as better application techniques of fertilizer and manure. While emissions for most other sectors in Austria have increased or stagnated, Austrian agriculture has reduced its GHG emissions in the last 20 years by more than eleven percent.

Still further reductions are possible. Recent studies (e. g., Bittman et al. 2014, Sutton et al. 2011a, 2013, Winiwarter et al. 2009, 2010) demonstrate cost-effective methods to further improve NUE and mitigate GHG, while lacking on direct guidance for practical implementation. GHG mitigation options very generally meet implementation barriers. Smith et al. (2007, 2008) conclude that economic constraints might limit implementation of agricultural GHG mitigation to less than 35 percent of the total biophysical potential by 2030. In addition to economic constraints, further barriers may exist. Smith et al. (2007, 2008) point out that implementing creative policies that consider all aspects of economic, social and environmental sustainability will be crucial.

In agricultural practice, the perceived external dominance, conflicts of interest, and practicability of measures and costs may be considered as factors leading to an implementation gap. De spite of the fact that people and institutions engaged in an occupation that profits from and lives of the resources provided by ecosystems should maintain a vital interest in environmental aspects, it proves difficult to bypass barriers.
BOX: Worth a Thought: Transdisciplinary Project Design Introducing a New
Section in GAIA: Design Reports

GAIA frequently publishes the results of transdisciplinary
projects. Reporting results leaves little room for discussing the
project design and the processes shaping it. However, when a team
transcends the borders of academia, involves non-academic partners
and does joint work, it is necessary to pay special attention to
the question how partners from scientific and non-scientific
cultures communicate.

If project partners publish only after completion of the project
focussing exclusively on results, knowledge about the ways how
successful transdisciplinary projects are structured, what kind of
communication architectures they have and how they handle results
is not shared. Thus, mutual learning -be it from the best practices
available or from difficulties--is hardly possible. GAIA wants to
create a space for projects to contribute to a common knowledge
base of transdisciplinary project know-how. As Design Reports can
be published before a project terminates, teams can learn for
themselves from reflecting on transdisciplinary project
(communication) architectures and processes. By fostering the
exchange on the how of transdisciplinary project design, GAIA
provides a platform for a long neglected field of

GAIA Design Reports are subject to double-blind peer review and
should present original research. (3) They are an experiment, and
we would like to invite all those who do transdisciplinary research
to take part in it.

(a) For more details see

Matching environmental considerations with the economic profitability of farms, rising feedstock demand and the challenges imposed by diverse legislation needs close interactions and communication of diverse stakeholders. FarmClim is at the starting point of such an interaction and plans to demonstrate how cooperation between science, authorities and stakeholders can work successfully. FarmClim employs transdisciplinary research between practitioners and scientists, to actively involve stakeholders in the process of producing solutions via diverse means of interaction (Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008). Global warming and environmental pollution cross the boundaries of academic disciplines, and implementing measures involves experts, authorities and stakeholders. Bringing together several disciplines into a common interdisciplinary project is a task of its own, requiring efforts of integrating very different specific jargons. Involving practitioners adds to the challenge. A transdisciplinary team integrates specific interests to obtain a holistic view of the problem. Transdisciplinarity acknowledges the need to address the complexity of problems and the diversity of their perceptions. This process requires open discussion, giving equal weight to each perspective (e.g., Pohl 2008, Enengel et al. 2012, Nesshover et al. 2013).

Project Development, Layout and Methodologies

Following a call for proposals from Austria's national Climate and Energy-Research Programme (KLIEN), initial discussions started to form a consortium. The project topic was focussed on mitigation of nitrogen pollution and emissions of GHG under consideration of economic effects in agriculture. Decision was taken to include institutions into the network that had already accumulated relevant datasets, and to focus on implementation. As a provider of agricultural extension service, the Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Austria (LK) was invited to join. Integrating a stakeholder directly as an equal partner is a novelty. While in previous concepts end users always remained somewhat outside and were reduced to the role of "recipients of results", here the Chamber of Agriculture, the Environment Agency and scientists sit around the same table and work together towards the identification of implementable optimisation measures for agriculture--as partners just in the same consortium. The stakeholders' views are heard and integrated into the final results. The table shows the detailed expertise as well as the tasks of the respective project partners.

The project team requires a balance of 1. scientists involved in international networks who would focus on the scientific foundations of the selected measures and on disseminating the project in the community, and 2. experts in agricultural practice, who have a large pool of data accessible from past endeavours in data collection and a very close connection to the farming community. Moreover, it was necessary to integrate competences in emission reporting, as well as an economic perspective in order to provide information on costs of any measures seriously considered.

FarmClim was set up in seven work packages (WPs) (see figure, p. 122). WPs were organised to optimise interactions, in a way that they could each be performed by a subunit of the project team (one or two main partners). For the overall project success, the coordination activity aimed at providing information exchange through consortium meetings every three months, and by enforcing timely transfer of deliveries.

Project Coordination and Management

Considering the inter- and transdisciplinary approach of FarmClim and the complex project team, special attention was given to organise and manage project coordination. The work in FarmClim builds on frequent exchange of data and opinion between WPs. For this reason, full project team meetings are being held every three months since the project started in May 2012. Those internal meetings are considered the key element of efficient communication within the project. Each WP first provides an overview of the current status of the work. The project leader is assisted by the quality control team, which takes on moderation of the meeting, checks the status of the milestones and deliverables, and maintains storage of all project outcomes.

To facilitate document and file management, an online data repository was prepared as an element of internal quality control. With assistance of a website (based on Microsoft[R] SharePoint) data are collected in document libraries (description of milestones, deliverables, presentations, minutes, publications, reports) and are password-protected accessible for all project partners.

The first quarterly project meeting focussed on the communication of the respective concepts between the individual contributors. The second meeting was centred on defining data transfer, especially preparing information for the economic module. First datasets genuinely prepared for FarmClim were introduced and discussed on the third meeting. The fourth meeting discussed the preparation of the interim report and the project presentation to the external review team. In the following meetings, project work and dissemination activities took centre stage. Furthermore, draft concepts for the basis for guidelines (WP 7) and the preparation of the final stakeholder workshop were on the agenda.

Project meetings fostered a respectful exchange of views and were characterised by the willingness and success in finding ways to progress further in the project. Each project meeting is documented in detailed minutes which are sent to all project participants for comments and final agreement. Thus it is ensured that the full knowledge and agreement is shared by all participants.

The project meetings of the entire team sparked discussion regarding further interaction between participating partners. A consensus developed that more time was needed for bilateral discussions, both within and across WPs, covering issues of relevance for specific WPs. The meeting design was adjusted accordingly, so that after a general part of each project meeting, time is allocated to further bilateral meetings which are arranged by the WP leaders according to the actual project necessities.

Scientific Work on Animal Husbandry, Crop Production and Soil Science

The holistic systems approach of FarmClim and its goal to improve NUE and to mitigate reactive nitrogen and GHG emissions requires sectoral experts from animal husbandry, crop production and soil science to collectively contribute to the project. The setting up of farm balances is essential when the most relevant measures for effective optimisation strategies in farming systems are to be identified (Roessler et al. 2013).

FarmClim aims to find optimisation measures for animal husbandry and crop production that increase nutrient efficiency. This requires close interaction between the scientific experts (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna [BOKU], Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety [AGES]), the reporting organisation (Environment Agency Austria) as well as other stakeholders (LK). The scientific experts describe optimisation measures and include all input data required by the economic assessment and the environmental reporting. LK offers expert consultancy and knowledge on current practices in animal husbandry and crop production from a very practical perspective. It is the duty of the scientific experts on animal husbandry and crop production to describe mitigation measures. Their description must include input data required by the economic assessment and the environmental reporting. The reporting organisation oversees the respective measure description and makes proposals for improvements of the environmental reporting.


Modelling [N.sub.2]O emissions from Austrian soils is also a key element of FarmClim as it forms an essential basis for optimisation measures. A biophysical model was implemented (Landscape DNDC, cf. Haas et al. 2012) to describe the [N.sub.2]O emissions from Austrian soils. The FarmClim team selected two contrasting target regions, based on data availability and expertise available in the consortium. Modelling helps to identify priority sites, where increasing NUE is most effective to mitigate emissions.

Applying Sectoral Results in Economic Assessment and Environmental Reporting

Selected agricultural measures with a high potential to increase NUE and to mitigate GHG emissions are subject to agro-economic assessment within the project. Costs which would arise for farmers are calculated and measured towards the positive effects expected. This analysis, which also points out the most relevant cost factors, relies on data input from the experts on animal husbandry and crop production.

The economic viability of measures is fundamental for implementation. Their accountability for the national GHG inventory is just as central. Mitigation measures as committed to following international agreements will not be credited to the agricultural sector unless the national emission inventories for N[H.sub.3] and GHG demonstrate a positive effect. For that purpose, any improvement needs to be reflected in the Austrian National Inventory Report (e. g., NIR 2012).

Basis for Recommendations for Agricultural Advisory Services on Measures and Their Economic Impact

Ultimately, the project has been designed to allow a transfer of project results to practical implementation where framework conditions allow such a transfer. All members of the project team will contribute to translate FarmClim results to a basis for guidance for the agricultural practice. Writing of guidance documents needs to remain with the respective experts of the extension services, who use the structures of the agricultural services for further dissemination. This concept follows the advice of the stakeholder partner and was already developed during proposal writing. Integrating existing institutions into the the long-term aspect of the implementation phase provides an opportunity for continuation beyond the lifetime of the project. FarmClim currently works out suggestions for a follow-up strategy, after the project ends, as it is recognised that the communication and interaction process initiated by FarmClim should be stabilised.

Internal Discussion Processes and Cooperation during Start-up and Initial Operational Phase

The project structure supports interaction within and between WPs. Potential optimisation and mitigation options were identified. The set of options relied on results of a ministry-led national committee (Verhandlungsgruppe Landwirtschaft). Based on these options, FarmClim discussions resulted in proposing dairy cattle diet, phase feeding for pigs, and anaerobic digestion of animal manures as measures in animal husbandry, as well as the effect of increasing legume crops in crop rotations and optimising fertilizer input as measures in crop production. Key criterion for the selection was the sound scientific basis of the measures' effectiveness. The costs and practicability of such measures at farm level are subject to further analysis.

The example of phase feeding demonstrates how the project benefits from the internal trans- and interdisciplinary discussion process. Phase feeding for pigs (i. e., feeding of at least two different diets during the fattening period) is known to optimise protein availability while avoiding surplus that may lead to emissions of nitrogen. Scientists deliver calculation data for this assessment. Project partner LK contributes their stakeholder knowledge on farming practices including technical installations, farm type developments and impeding barriers. Scientists distinguished two farm types--with or without phase feeding. Stakeholder experts informed that due to economic reasons not every pig producer is in the situation to take extra investments in phase feeding technologies. Those investments are only relevant on farms that grow and/or are able to take long term investments into their future. But farms that do not have the potential of taking investments still have the possibility of optimising their feeding by using an "optimised diet", which adjusts the protein content of pig feed rations according to feed analysis. This is not as effective as phase feeding, but can be applied more widely and by this wider implementation also has the potential of contributing significantly to a reduction of nitrogen emissions. Therefore a common decision was taken to investigate aspects like profitability, saving potential and practicability for the three options.

Implications for Cooperation and Outlook

The challenges of a project as diverse as FarmClim became evident from the inception phase. In contrast to "classical" research projects, we are confronted with a diversity of in part conflicting interests and approaches, a direct result of the diversity of the partners involved.

The project team responded to the challenge by way of increased communication. The pattern of quarterly meetings had been set with the proposal already, an extension to encourage bilateral meetings following back-to-back (as described above) represents an immediate reaction. Specific questions of general relevance were raised to the consortium and answered during the main meeting. For instance, crop rotations suggested in WP 4 (soil [N.sub.2]O modelling) were discussed and adjusted with input from the crop production experts and from the stakeholder. The discussion was completed when crop rotations were found on which all partners could agree: [N.sub.2]O modellers could model them, LK considered them to be practical, and crop scientists acknowledged them being in line with the state of the art. In-depth details of WPs were discussed by the WP participants after the main meeting.

The project timeline and the content of deliverables needed to be re-negotiated as a result of continually improving perception on actual information needs. Considerable flexibility and compromises are needed continuously, for example, regarding the extent and the level of data transfer from the data collection-oriented WPs to the evaluation-oriented parts of the project. A decision was taken to fully disentangle two pathways of data flow, one ranging from assessing emissions and measures towards economic modelling, the other from soil modelling to emission and mitigation reporting. This decision required the willingness of partners to accept variations during the ongoing project, and was made possible by a participation process where partners accepted being called into discussion even if their respective WP was not (yet) active at a given project stage.

Compared to a project of simpler internal structure, also the dissemination policy needs consideration of all project partners. Project interim results need to be carefully evaluated across the project before publication of more general project results (scientific as well as media publication) is possible. Statements regarding the proposed agricultural measures, even if within the standard repertoire of certain institutions, become more difficult in the project context as possibly infringing on the perspective on another participating institution. In general, typical conflicts that are staged in a scientific or public discussion here need to be first settled internally, with the consequence of diminished immediate project publicity.

As a consequence, the inter- and transdisciplinary project approach asks to settle any disputable issues internally before going to the public. Such demands lead to further discussions, which together with the more intense observation of the project activities and public appearance may establish new ideas and a new thinking by all project partners across the otherwise closed communities. Direct confrontation, as long as exerted with respect, adds a perspective unattainable in the classical science-policy gap setting. The best example to date has been achieved in the selecting of measures for an increase in NUE, where interaction between practitioners and science allowed adapting measures investigated.

Common conclusions in an internal discussion process encourage expectations of resulting positions and agreements to be maintained beyond the lifetime of the project. Taking public positions only after a common position is reached should make it easier to stand by the final decision. Whether expectations become true is still to be seen in the further course and especially after the end of the project.

Having jointly developed and started FarmClim, we can see increased curiosity and insight in the respective positions of partners. This can be demonstrated by meeting attendance as well as by the active participation in all communication processes. An internal learning process has shaped the project processes. This will be further expanded as project participants have been requested to report on their respective learning experience for the final report. A strategy is currently under development to extend the information and communication process beyond the lifetime of the project. Options for the continuation of the work started in FarmClim will be part of the final project report. FarmClim thus strives to provide agriculture with all means necessary to meet the challenge of improving productivity while decreasing environmental impacts.

doi: 10.14512/gaia.23.2.9

This paper is a contribution to FarmClim, a project funded under the Austrian Climate Research Programme.

Submitted November 13, 2013; revised version accepted April 16, 2014.


Bittman, S., M. Dedina, C. M. Howard, O. Oenema, M. Sutton (Eds.). 2014. Options for ammonia mitigation: Guidance from the UNECE task force on reactive nitrogen. Edinburgh, UK: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

BMLFUW (Bundesministerium fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft). 2007. Anpassung der Klimastrategie Osterreichs zur Erreichung des Kyoto-Ziels 2008-2013. Vienna: BMLFUW.

Enengel, B., A. Muhar, M. Penker, B. Freyer, S. Drlik, F. Ritter. 2012. Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development: An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landscape and Urban Planning 105/1-2: 106-117.

Galloway, J. N. et al. 2004. Nitrogen cycles: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70:153-226.

Galloway, J. N. et al. 2008. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320: 889-892.

Gorman, H.S. 2013. Learning from 100 years of ammonia synthesis: Establishing human-defined limits through adaptive systems of governance. GAIA 22/4: 263-270.

Haas, E. et al. 2012. LandscapeDNDC: A process model for simulation of biosphere-atmosphere-hydrosphere exchange processes at site and regional scale. Landscape Ecology 28/4: 615-636.

Hirsch Hadorn, G. et al. (Eds.). 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Heidelberg: Springer.

Nesshover, C. et al. 2013. Improving the science-policy interface of biodiversity research projects. GAIA 22/2: 99-103.

NIR (National Inventory Report). 2012. Austria's national inventory report 2012: Submission under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and under the Kyoto Protocol. Report R-0381. Vienna: Environment Agency Austria.

Nortcliff, S. 2009. The soil: Nature, sustainable use, management, and protection--An overview. GAIA 18/1: 58-68.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008. Environmental performance of agriculture in OECD countries since 1990. Paris: OECD.

Pohl, C. 2008. From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science and Policy 11/1: 46-53.

Roessler, R. et al. 2013. Farm-based greenhouse gas accounting for livestock production systems in Germany. Advances in Animal Biosciences 4/2: 528.

Sebek, V. 1983. Bridging the gap between environmental science and policy-making: Why public policy often fails to reflect current scientific knowledge. Ambio 12:118-120.

Smith, P. et al. 2007. Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118/1-4: 6-28.

Smith, P. et al. 2008. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363/1492: 789-813.

Sutton, M.A. et al. (Eds.). 2011 a. The European nitrogen assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sutton, M.A., O. Oenema, J.W. Erisman, A. Leip, H. van Grinsven, W. Winiwarter, 2011 b. Too much of a good thing. Nature 472: 159-161.

Sutton M.A. et al. 2013. Our nutrient world: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution. Edinburgh, UK: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

Winiwarter, W. et al. 2009. Reclip:tom -Research for climate protection: Technological options for mitigation. AIT-F&PD-Report 6. Vienna: Austrian Institute of Technology.

Winiwarter, W., L. Hoglund-Isaksson, W. Schopp, A. Tohka, F. Wagner, M. Amann. 2010. Emission mitigation potentials and costs for non-C[O.sub.2] greenhouse gases in Annex-I countries according to the GAINS model. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 7: 235-243.


PD Dr. Barbara Amon

presently: Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering, Potsdam, Germany

Dipl.-Ing. Martina Kasper

Mag. Elisabeth Sigmund, MSc

Prof. Dr. Sophie Zechmeister-Boltenstern

all: University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, Institute of Soil Research, Vienna, Austria

Univ. Doz. Dr. Wilfried Winiwarter

presently: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

Dipl.-Ing. Andrea Schrock

both: University of Graz, Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research (ISIS), Graz, Austria

Dipl.-lng. Michael Anderl

Environment Agency Austria, Department Air Pollution Control & Climate Change Mitigation, Vienna, Austria

Gerhard Zethner, MSc

Environment Agency Austria, Department Land Use & Biosafety, Vienna, Austria

Dr. Andreas Baumgarten

Dr. Georg Dersch

both: Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Institute for Sustainable Plant Production, Vienna, Austria

Mag. Thomas Guggenberger, MSc

Agricultural Research and Education Centre (AREC) Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria

Univ. Prof. Dipl.-lng. Dr. nat. techn. Hubert Hasenauer Dipl.-lng. Elisabeth Potzelsberger

both: BOKU, Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, Institute of Silviculture, Vienna, Austria

Univ. Prof. Dr. Jochen Kantelhardt

Dipl.-lng. Tobias Moser

Dipl.-lng. Lena Schaller

all: BOKU, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Economics, Vienna, Austria

Dr. Barbara Kitzler

Austrian Research Centre for Forests (BFW),Vienna, Austria

DI Manfred Prosenbauer

Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Austria, St. Polten, Austria

(1) Defined as the ratio of nitrogen contained in harvested products divided by the total nitrogen input.

(2) For a historical view on the regulation of nitrogen flows in the last 100 years see Gorman (2013).

Contact: PD Dr. Barbara Amon | Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering | Department of Technology Assessment and Substance Cycles | Max-Eyth-Allee 100 114469 Potsdam | Germany | Tel.: +49 331 5699243 | E-Mail:

Barbara Amon

Born 1967 in Furth, Germany. PhD 1998. 2007 habilitation in agricultural engineering. Since 1999 senior research scientist at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Austria, since 2012 also at the Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering, Potsdam, Germany. Research interests: greenhouse gas and nitrogen emission mitigation from animal husbandry systems.

Wilfried Winiwarter

Born 1962 in Linz, Austria. PhD 1988. 2003 habilitation in environmental chemistry. Since 2003 research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria, simultaneously 2012 to 2014 professor of systems sciences at the University of Graz. Research interests: atmospheric processes and global/regional elemental cycles and their interactions with human and social systems.
TABLE: Overview about the main tasks covered by the project partners.
WP: work package.

partner                               specific expertise as required
                                      in the project concept

University of Natural Resources and   * emissions and nitrogen use
Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)--          efficiency in animal husbandry
Institute of Soil Research (IBF)
                                      * soil processes and modelling

                                      * farmers' training and expert
                                      consultancy regarding the
                                      Austrian agricultural system

University of Natural Resources and   * emissions and nitrogen use
Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)--IBF,     efficiency in crop production
Austrian Research Centre for
Forests (BFW)                         * soil processes and modelling

University of Natural Resources and   * agricultural economics
Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)--
Institute of Agricultural and
Forestry Economics (AFO)

University of Natural Resources and   * soil processes and modelling
Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)--
Institute of Silviculture             * emissions and nitrogen use
Austrian Agency for Health and        efficiency in crop production
Food Safety (ACES)
                                      * farmers' training and expert
                                      consultancy regarding the
                                      Austrian agricultural system

Environment Agency Austria            * emission reporting

                                      * integration of nitrogen-
                                      related aspects and intervention

Chamber of Agriculture of Lower       * emission reporting
Austria (LK Niederosterreich)
                                      * integration of nitrogen-
                                      related aspects and intervention

                                      * farmers' training and expert
                                      consultancy regarding the
                                      Austrian agricultural system

University of Graz--Institute of      * emissions and nitrogen use
Systems Science, Innovation and       efficiency in animal husbandry
Sustainability Research (ISIS)
                                      * emissions and nitrogen use
                                      efficiency in crop production

                                      * integration of nitrogen-
                                      related aspects and intervention

partner                               roles and tasks in the project

University of Natural Resources and   * project coordinator
Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)--
Institute of Soil Research (IBF)      * lead WPs 1,2, 7, scientific
                                      expertise in nitrogen and
                                      greenhouse gas emissions from
                                      animal husbandry linking to a
                                      range of international working

University of Natural Resources and   * lead WP4, scientific expertise
Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)--IBF,     in soil processes
Austrian Research Centre for
Forests (BFW)                         * modelling [N.sub.2]0 emissions
                                      from Austrian soils with a
                                      process based model to identify
                                      "hot spots" (critical areas) and
                                      "hot moments" (sensitive times
                                      of the year)

                                      * developing [N.sub.2]0
                                      mitigation for present and
                                      future climates

University of Natural Resources and   * lead WP5, expertise in
Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)--         agricultural economics
Institute of Agricultural and
Forestry Economics (AFO)              * assessment of adaptation costs
                                      for farmers implementing
                                      measures to optimise nitrogen
                                      use and minimise greenhouse gas
                                      emission losses, based on
                                      results from project partners

                                      * detecting the most relevant
                                      cost factors, contrasting
                                      greenhouse gas emission
                                      mitigation potentials with
                                      corresponding adaptation costs

University of Natural Resources and   * contributing climate
Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU)--         parameters to data and models,
Institute of Silviculture             taking advantage of relevant
Austrian Agency for Health and        datasets compiled for forestry
Food Safety (ACES)
                                      * lead WP3, analysis of ongoing
                                      own field experiments, expertise
                                      in established and new
                                      techniques for the optimisation
                                      of nitrogen fertilization and
                                      respective implementation

                                      * analysis of characteristics of
                                      crop species and cultivars, crop
                                      rotations and intercropping with
                                      respect to nitrogen use

                                      * detailed knowledge on
                                      commercial farms in Austria and
                                      their needs

Environment Agency Austria            * lead WP6, linking science and
                                      policy with an understanding for
                                      both sides

                                      * official national reporting
                                      agency to international bodies
                                      (United Nations Framework
                                      Convention on Climate Change,
                                      United Nations Economic
                                      Commission for Europe), thus
                                      developing reporting procedures
                                      of greenhouse gas emissions and
                                      air pollutants consistent with
                                      national obligations while
                                      meeting scientific standards

Chamber of Agriculture of Lower       * stakeholder view, expert
Austria (LK Niederosterreich)         consultancy and knowledge of
                                      current practices in animal
                                      husbandry and crop production

University of Graz--Institute of      * full systems perspective,
Systems Science, Innovation and       specifically regarding the
Sustainability Research (ISIS)        nitrogen cycle

                                      * investigating good
                                      agricultural practice under the
                                      condition of climate change and
                                      identification of intervention
                                      points for the overall nitrogen

                                      * responsibility for internal
                                      quality control
COPYRIGHT 2014 OEKOM Publishing GmbH
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Amon, Barbara; Winiwarter, Wilfried; Anderl, Michael; Baumgarten, Andreas; Dersch, Georg; Guggenberg
Publication:GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EUAU
Date:May 1, 2014
Previous Article:Rebound effects: blind spots in the socio-ecological transition of industrial societies/Der rebound-effekt: ein blinder fleck der sozial-okologischen...
Next Article:A worrier's guide to the future.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters