project's final technical report

LIFE07/ENV/D/0000222 PROGRASS Final Report 1

LIFE Project Number

LIFE07/ENV/D/0000222

FINAL Report Covering the project activities from 01/01/2009 to 30/06/2012

Reporting Date 30/09/2012

LIFE+ PROJECT NAME or Acronym

PROGRASS

Data Project

Project location Kassel

Project start date: 01/01/2009

Project end date: 30/06/2012 Extension date: <- >

Total Project duration (in months)

42 months Extension months <0> months)

Total budget € 3.230.969

EC contribution: € 1.614.380

(%) of total costs 49,97

(%) of eligible costs 49,97

Data Beneficiary Name Beneficiary University of Kassel

Contact person Prof. Dr. Michael Wachendorf, Leena Ferogh

Postal address Mönchebergstr. 19, 34125 Kassel

Visit address Steinstrasse 19, 37213 Witzenhausen

Telephone +49-561-804 1334

Fax: +49-561-804 1230

E-mail [email protected]

Project Website www.prograss.eu


1. List of content

1. List of content ................................................................................................................ 2 2. Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project objectives................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Key deliverables and outputs ................................................................................. 4

3. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 7 4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages)......................................................................... 8

4.1 Description of the management system....................................................................... 8 4.2 Evaluation of the management system .................................................................10

5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages).............................................................................11 5.1. Task by task - description .....................................................................................11

5.1.1 Workpackage 1: DEMONSTRATION ............................................................11 5.1.2 Workpackage 2: FEASIBILITY ......................................................................18 5.1.3 Workpackage 3: SUSTAINABILITY...............................................................24 5.1.4 Workpackage 4 VALORISATION ..................................................................33

5.2 Evaluation...................................................................................................................45 5.3 Analysis of long-term benefits.....................................................................................52 5.4 Dissemination issues ............................................................................................56

5.4.2 Layman's report.............................................................................................56 5.4.3 After-LIFE Communication plan.....................................................................56

6. Comments on the financial report .................................................................................58 6.1. Costs incurred ...........................................................................................................58 6.2. Accounting system.....................................................................................................58 6.3. Partnership arrangements (if relevant).......................................................................59 6.4. Auditor's report/declaration ........................................................................................59

7. Annexes ...........................................................................................................................60

List of abbreviations CHP Combined Heat and Power Plant CCW Countryside Council for Wales DM Dry Matter ha Hectare IFBB Integrated Generation of Solid Fuel and Biogas from Biomass IFBB-SA IFBB stand alone plant IFBB-AO IFBB-Add-on plant on an existing biogas or sewage water plant IPR Intellectual Property Rights IRR Internal Rate of Return LCA Life Cycle Assessment PA Partnership Agreement PM Project Month TM Transnational Meeting WP Work Package EU member state abbreviations: AT (Austria), BE (Belgium), CZ (Czech Republik) DE (Germany), EE (Estonia), FR (France), HU (Hungary), IT (Italy), SL (Slovenia), SK (Slovakia) UK (United Kingdom)


2. Executive Summary

Please briefly describe the project objectives, key deliverables and outputs and include a paragraph on each chapter. This summary should be a stand-alone text and must be provided in English as well as in the language in which the rest of the report is written.

2.1 Project objectives Against the background of the current discussion on bio-energy vs. food production and the increasing critique on conventional biogas production there is a strong need to explore alternative raw materials for bio-energy production. In this context, swards from extensively cultivated grassland have been identified as having extraordinary value in terms of preserving biodiversity. Many are protected under the European Habitats Directive and, as livestock numbers are now in decline, the diversity of these landscapes is under threat. In order to prevent these habitats from turning to scrublands the respective areas have to be extensively harvested according to strict regulations that dictate a late harvest time to allow reproduction of the flora and fauna. However, the biomass retrieved is of insufficient quality for conventional biogas plants and most other bioenergy production plants. In the PROGRASS project novel approaches have been employed to bypass these issues in order to sustainably produce energy whilst simultaneously preserving biodiversity. PROGRASS sought to meet these serious technical, economic, ecological and ethical shortfalls by promoting an innovative and environmentally friendly technology under the different conditions of three European regions.

Hence PROGRASS has combined state of the art technology in a sustainable approach to gain bioenergy from a substrate which could not be used with conventional technology. As demonstration project PROGRASS was introduced in 3 model regions in protected NATURA habitats to prepare the ground for a large scale European wide transfer.

The University of Kassel developed a technological and process orientated approach (PROGRASS) to produce bioenergy (electricity and solid fuel) also from mature grasslands (protected NATURA habitats). Due to the adapted technology the PROGRASS approach is especially feasible for extensive grasslands – a substrate which causes problems in conventional biogas or combustion systems. The project PROGRASS aimed at up-scaling, demonstrating and implementing the approach in extensive grassland in European NATURA habitats – not only to prove the feasibility but also to evidence that the approach may become a cornerstone in the protection of these grasslands biotopes in Europe by developing a sustainable solution consisting of nature protection and socio-economic development of disadvantaged, marginal rural regions. Thus PROGRASS followed the overall objectives:

• Protection of NATURA reserves

• Securing livelihood for small farmers in retreated areas

• Saving/Compensating costs for the conservation of grassland biotopes

• Increasing the acceptance for the compulsory and sustainable management and maintenance of these biotopes

• European wide creation of awareness and transfer of the approach for the sake of European NATURA habitats


On the project level PROGRASS worked along the four operative objectives:

1. Demonstrating the approach in three different European regions

2. Analysing and verifying the technical feasibility

3. Investigating and evidencing the sustainability of the approach and

4. Valorising (disseminating and exploiting) the approach in Europe

2.2 Key deliverables and outputs PROGRASS has provided and piloted the integrated approach to conserving semi-natural grasslands whilst generating energy sustainably, by means of the innovative concept called the “Integrated Generation of Solid Fuel and Biogas from Biomass” (IFBB).

It could be proven that with IFBB the biomass from semi-natural grassland can be used efficiently and the formerly unused raw materials can be used as (additional) input materials for biofuels.

The following outputs and deliverables were developed in the course of the project’s work packages:

WP1: Demonstration

Mobile PROGRASS/IFBB units with a 12m3 fermenting unit each and attached mobile sampling facilities were constructed and maintained during the demonstration trail through Europe. The mobile unit was shipped to three sites in Germany, Wales and Estonia in a European demonstration circuit. The demonstration activities were carried out twice in each country with a duration of three month each. A standardised procedure of harvesting and conservation methods of biomass from NATURA grassland habitats (“common protocol”) was developed including procedural descriptions (flow charts, interactive web-elements). An initial training of project personnel/local farmers in regard to harvesting and conservation was carried out, mainly with the help of an initial online course.

The up-scaling of the IFBB technology from laboratory to demonstration scale (1:10 of a full scale plant) worked well. The idea to combine demonstration events (WP4) with the mobile IFBB plant turned out extremely successful since the technology could be shown on the spot and attracted a large number of regional and national stakeholders. The common protocol is the key document that will be the basis for a transfer of the standardised conservation and harvesting method to other regions from 2013 onwards.

WP2 Feasibility

432 samples were analysed from the harvests in 2009 and 2010 and about 100 m3 of solid fuel were produced. On basis of the common protocol, test samples for different vegetations were collected and shipped for biochemical fuel analysis in a central laboratory at Kassel University as well as to analyse and optimize the combustion parameters of the solid fuel.

Input-Output-Parameter for single components of the technical plant were measured during the 3-monthly demonstration runs in the different locations. A feasibility study was developed describing the technical parameters in regard to the amounts and usability of the biofuel.

The feasibility study showed that the IFBB-system leads to a considerable improvement of the combustion properties. These enhancements could be verified for the three regions and


the respective grassland types. Compared to the original feedstock the contents of damaging ingredients like sulphur, chlorine, potassium and magnesium were reduced substantially. It is thereby possible to create a solid fuel with adequate levels of chlorine and sulphur: levels that are below the threshold beyond which they can be problematic in terms of emission, slagging or corrosion.

Mashing and dehydration of the grassland biomass reduced the amount of toxic mineral substances down to the ranges seen in typical wood fuel, whereas the high content of nitrogen demands the use of adapted combustion techniques. By utilising double-staged firing systems the subsequent emissions of nitrogen oxides are kept suitably low and complied with the established thresholds of current emission regulations.

Performance parameters (nutrient budgets and solid fuel characteristics and silage parameters) for different raw materials from NATURA grassland habitats were calculated and comparative feasibility reports were developed.

Following the conversion of grassland biomass via the IFBB-procedure about 45 % of the energy stored in the biomass can be transformed into available heat. The power that is produced is used to meet the plants electricity demands, beyond that about 15 % of the gross energy yield is used to cover internal heat demands, especially for drying. In combining the IFBB-system with a biogas plant that produces excess heat, the value of heat provision can be raised up to about 53 % of the gross energy yield.

The analysis of the energy and greenhouse gas balances that are attained through different IFBB related systems shows that the highest potential savings of fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions, is obtained in an integrated system whereby the IFBB-procedure is combined with an existing biogas or waste water treatment plant (IFBB-add-on).

WP3: Sustainability (Evidencing the ecological and economical sustainability)

The complex socio-economic effects of costs and benefits of the PROGRASS approach were evaluated at microeconomic and regional level. Suitable management options for semi-natural grasslands were evaluated via a thorough process involving the cost calculation of different cultivation systems, the economic comparison of different extensive land use systems and the employment of profound investment calculations. Investment calculations show that, dependent on the frame conditions, the IFBB bioenergy approach permits a profitable use of semi-natural grassland. Considering characteristic regional conditions, calculations of land use options and plant investment show that the PROGRASS approach can represent a valuable economic alternative that contributes to preserving regional economic structures and to protecting semi-natural grassland habitats. Furthermore, the combination of the IFBB-procedure with a biogas plant (IFBB Add-on) leads to improved economic efficiencies of semi-natural grassland uses by numerous synergetic effects.

The profitability (Internal Rate of Return, IRR) in any case lies above the interest rate for external capital. Therefore IFBB plants either as stand-alone option (IFBB-SA) or as IFBB-Add-on (IFBB-AO) to a conventional biogas plant can be managed profitably.

A break even-analysis of the IFBB plant economics displayed theoretical saving potentials of EU compensatory payments for the IFBB-SA system of 41 € (Germany), 54 € (Wales) and 20 € (Estonia) as well as 280 €, 291 € and 164 € per hectare for the IFBB-AO system for the regarded regions, respectively.

The botanical composition and diversity criteria of the pilot plots were assessed and compared with national lists of special targeted species and habitats. The survey revealed that number of species on the sites increased in the course of the experimental years. The strongest augmentations could be observed on comparably species-poor Welsh sites. The species-rich sites in Germany and Estonia could maintain their biodiversity and realise new species, too. Although these are still rather short-term results they show that bioenergy


production on NATURA grassland sites according to the PROGRASS harvesting and conservation standards has a positive effect on biodiversity.

WP4. Valorisation

The valorisation strategy was drafted and discussed in the first project phase and adopted in time. It consists of a 3-step procedure to attract and train regional stakeholders with the help of a blended learning and regional development approach. Farmers were consulted in the first project phase in regard to the harvesting and conservation, this approach was extended to a staged blended learning course. At the end of the project more than 1.400 persons (800 registered, 600 unregistered) attended the modular PROGRASS information, counselling and learning events in the framework of the blended learning course with modular units for farmers, responsible persons in relevant associations, decision makers, local politicians and administrators, researchers and enterprises.

In combination with WP3 eight case studies analysed the specific socio-economic conditions of a selection of local projects to analyse the potentials to implement a concrete PROGRASS plant. Seven explorative “micro studies” were carried out in new partner regions and acting recommendations for regional stakeholders were derived.

Mass information mailings and newsletters were sent from a PROGRASS database established with more than 3.000 addresses

55 popular and 15 scientific publications were written and released, 3 TV spots were taken.

A PROGRASS-Network was developed as non-profit association according to German law, memorandum; statement of partnership and all necessary documents were prepared and the organisation was founded and registered in 2011. By the end of the project PROGRASS e.V. has 18 new partners from 13 regions in 9 European member states. In connection with the valorisation and collaborative learning approach two transnational follow-up projects could be developed.


3. Introduction

− Description of background, problem and objectives

The core element of the PROGRASS project is the technical approach, called "Integrated Generation of Solid Fuel and Biogas from Biomass" (IFBB), developed on laboratory scale in the early 20s. IFBB is based on the separation of the biomass in a solid fibrous fraction (press cake) to be used as solid fuel and a fluid biologically convertible fraction (press fluid) for biogas production.

The main hypothesis test was: IFBB allows an economically sound protection of species-rich ecologically valuable NATURA grassland sites through an energetic utilisation of the harvested biomass. The energetic utilisation of biomass has an important role, as in contrast to other renewables (wind and photovoltaic), biomass is storable and it is possible to produce a storable bioenergy carrier. However, at present the energy production from biomass is often economically inefficient, e.g. through an insufficient utilization of waste heat in conventional biogas plants. The conventional production of biomass for biogas plants is often eco-inefficient, e.g. due to the dominance of maize and the increased risk of soil erosion and nutrient losses. Furthermore, the competition with food-production on fertile land and the resulting increase of prices for land and agricultural products causes ethical and socio-economic problems. PROGRASS was aiming at exploring and exploiting a new source of biomass, formerly unused grassland swards from abandoned or protected NATURA habitats. However, as input materials those swards cause problems in conventional biogas or combustion systems.

With IFBB the biomass from semi-natural grassland can be used efficiently and the formerly unused raw materials can be used as (additional) input materials for bio-fuels. In parallel PROGRASS is also aiming at promoting biodiversity.

The project was aiming at up-scaling the technology to demonstration-scale (1:10 of a full scale plant) in order to analyse the feasibility, explore the ecological and economical sustainability and to disseminate and valorise the project outputs and products.

The project aimed at demonstrating the approach in extensive grassland in European NATURA habitats at 3 European locations also to evidence that the approach may become a cornerstone in the protection of these grasslands biotopes in Europe by developing a sustainable solution consisting of nature protection and socio-economic development of disadvantaged, marginal rural regions.

In the last project phase PROGRASS aimed at setting up an enlarged network and triggering collaborations to extend the partnerships to other European regions to develop investments in innovative, decentralised bio-energy production plants.

Expected longer term results: The PROGRASS project has aimed at preparing decentralised investments in European regions in order to promote the technology and to explore and exploit unused input materials to be converted into storable bio-fuels. Parallel, it should contribute to supporting actions to foster diversity on abandoned European grassland sites. On the long run also other input materials (like municipal grass cuttings) and input materials from riparian areas shall be explored, tested and utilised. Parallel, also different product lines and production technologies (stand-alone and add-on plants) will be subjects of future investments in PROGRASS partner regions.


4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages)

4.1 Description of the management system

Project Management Structure: The organisational project structure reflects both logical framework and operational layers of the project. It supports central planning, monitoring and decision processes by clear structures and responsibilities.

Organisational structure draft of PROGRASS By May 2010 there was a personnel and organisational change in the project office leading to the following organigram:

Organisational structure draft of the project office Administrative issues have been centrally coordinated by the Project Office. It is the steering committee of PROGRASS. It coordinates demonstration, development, research and valorisation issues and is responsible for the central project planning. The Project Office consisted of a rather administrative wing which was located with the Uni Kassel as coordinator, connects to the EU-Commission and the monitoring team. In 2010 the project manager Dr. T. Scholze moved to partner 9. In the actions, partner teams worked on their tasks targeting clearly defined outputs (deliverables). The rather intensive communication with their team mates was facilitated by


regular online conferencing that was implemented in the initial project phase following the kick-off meeting. No. Envisaged focus/

Coordinating partner

Work Package 1: DEMONSTRATION

1.1 Mobile demonstration and analytical unit Uni Kassel 1.2 Standardised harvesting and processing

methods Uni Kassel/ Uni Bonn

1.3 Demonstration runs in 3 European locations EMU/IGER/VB/Uni Kassel

Work Package 2: Investigating and verifying the FEASIBILITY

2.1 Study on the technical feasibility Uni Kassel/ EMU/IGER

2.2 Calculating/Modelling of specific fuel production Uni Kassel Work Package 3: Investigating and verifying the SUSTAINABILITY

3.1 Examining the socio-economic effects Uni Kassel 3.2 Study on effects on NATURA habitats and

atmosphere Uni Kassel

Work Package 4: VALORISATION, Dissemination, Networking

4.1 Valorisation blinc 4.2 Dissemination BUPNET 4.3 Networking blinc/BUPNET Work package 5: Project Management, Workshops and Conferences 5 Complete WP Uni Kassel

Work packages, Actions and envisaged coordinating partners Project office and active partners met in regular online conferences to inform about activities carried out, coordinate follow-up actions and/or to discuss important administrative issues. The Project Office was the interface to the European Commission and the monitoring team. All reports, amendments and other formal issues were channelled through the Project Office which was led by a management team responsible for:

• Financial controlling, • Monitoring against content related criteria and • Coordination of the communication processes.

On the basis of the general Partner Agreement (PA) model of the Commission a first PROGRASS PA draft was developed in May 2009, first checked by partners’ legal advisors, revised in three versions, counterchecked, and given in the signing process in the month of September after the holiday period. The Partner Agreement regulated the role and relation of partners (and the Commission), finances and payments, general IPR and confidentiality, audits, external communication and termination in a legally binding way. The process of development and signing took longer than expected since every version had to be forwarded and counterchecked by the respective persons in the organisations. Copies of the signed Partner Agreements were already attached to the Inception report; the new/modified Partner Agreement of partners 9 and 6 were attached as annex 5.1 to the interim report. Additional to the partnership agreement a Partnership Memorandum was set up to regulate the relations of the partners in terms of working culture, communication and organisation and to prepare the future PROGRASS network.


4.2 Evaluation of the management system

a) The process The project management office worked closely together over the project lifetime, hence a good relation of monitoring, planning of content related issues in connection with financial and controlling issues could be realised. The internal communication with the partners, facilitated by online meetings worked very well.

b) The project management, the problems encountered, the partnerships and their added value

Problems encountered were mainly caused by internal obstacles in certain partner institutions, e.g. caused by unclear responsibilities and misunderstanding between the practical staff and their financial administration. This led to delayed financial information by the partners and additional communication at the project office. However, the partnership worked very well together on the practical level (the 4 main work packages). The direct transnational meetings created not only new insights in the different national situations and frame conditions but opened up new perspectives for transnational collaborations that finally led to new project designs in follow-up projects of the PROGRASS network. All project meetings were evaluated, the level of satisfaction with was very high in regard to achievements, organisation, structure and delivery and practical arrangements.

c) Technical and commercial application (reproducibility, economic feasibility, limiting factors) and (f) the future: continuation of the project + remaining threats

PROGRASS is a typical intermediate project, meaning that it was developed to prove an innovative technology and to prepare investment projects in the next stage. The PROGRASS approach (demonstration and capacity building) will be further substantiated on the experiences made and will be applied at least in 7 new partner regions in central Europe. The economic feasibility of IFBB is proven and different sustainability scenarios help to support new regions to introduce the PROGRASS approach. Limiting factors for future implementations are at the first place missing investment capacities especially in poorer regions and regional stakeholders that have to be convinced to take action. Therefore the collaborative developments to get follow-up projects and pre-investment funding are of major importance, especially for marginalised regions. Only if a reasonable financing can be provided/developed, potential partners will engage in activities to create investments for the implementation in PROGRASS/IFBB.

d) Comparison against the project-objectives All project objectives could be met, despite of the delays of the construction of the mobile unit in the first project phase. All deliverables were developed, there were minor deviations in quantity of some papers, however the results of those studies were excellent and enriched the scientific and expert discussion in the field. As far as the scope and the quality of the results are concerned some central outputs even exceeded the planned deliverables, be it in regard to new technological designs (add-on IFBB-plant to biogas or sewage water plants), alternative input materials (e.g. extension to roadside verges) and to different scenarios of output materials and possible transnational collaboration in regard to supply chains.

e) Effectiveness of dissemination activities Dissemination activities were very effective, also here all planned deliverables were reached. Mass publications and TV-spots raised high interest in the state of Hesse and nationwide and led to a high participation in the learning events at the spot. The blended learning approach that, in a staged approach, provided opportunities to regional stakeholders to substantially learn more about PROGRASS, to explore the potentials of the region and to collaboratively develop regional/transnational pre-investments turned out extremely successful since it created concrete follow-up projects.


5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages)

5.1. Task by task - description

This section concerns all project tasks except for: − "project management" which is dealt with in the administrative part (chapter 3) and − "dissemination", which is dealt with in a separate chapter (chapter 4.2)

In this section you should − Describe what has been done regarding the different technical/substantial components of the

project (such as research, fieldwork, construction). Avoid describing the objectives and targets as such. Indicate what has been done regarding each task (subtasks if appropriate)

o Describe the activities and outputs in quantifiable terms (also indicate by whom). o Compare with planned output. If possible, provide the exact expenditure for each

individual action; o Please clearly indicate (when applicable) the indicators used to test the performance

of each action) o Briefly indicate major problems/ drawbacks encountered, delays, including

consequences for other tasks (technical, legal, financial/economic, market, organisational or environment related problems).

− Compare the progress made with the established time schedule Please note that the progress of the project should also be presented using a Gantt-chart or similar, see last page

− Include tables, photographs etc to illustrate the actions; for LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity e.g. land purchase and non-recurring management activities;

If you have finalised separate reports or technical entities, describe them shortly here and attach complete reports, memos etc. as annexes.

5.1.1 Workpackage 1: DEMONSTRATION Mobile demonstration and analytical unit (Action 1.1) The main target of the technical conception of the prototype was to build up a mobil bioenergy plant that comprises the core elements of the IFBB procedure. Furthermore, the plant should be suitable for demonstration events, for the provision of a scientifically reliable database of European grassland fuels and for the processing of large amounts of biomass. The planning process of the demonstration unit started in PM 1 by the subcontractor in collaboration with the University of Kassel. However, the assembly of the plant could not be finished according to the application by project month (PM) 6. The negotiations with the company about the contract took considerably more time than expected, thus the contract was concluded at the beginning of June 2009. Most important issues leading to the delay were contractual negotiations about service features and guarantee in connection with system operation out of Germany as well as discussions about allocation conditions of the University of Kassel. These negotiations were inevitably important for the safe and secure handling of the demonstration plant and the delivery of reasonable service and maintenance by the provider. The construction of the mobile plant was carried out in close collaboration with the University of Kassel. Technical details were discussed weekly and the subcontractor reported about the progress of the plant construction in periodical meetings. Acceptance test of the demonstration plant was carried by the subcontractor and the University of Kassel by 11th of February, 2010, in Neumünster where the plant was assembled. The plant was transported to the first site of operation in the Vogelsberg region on 19th of February, 2010. The plant consists of two containers which are permanently placed on a mobile trailer. The acquisition of the trailer was also integrated in the contract and to simplify transnational


transport by avoiding loading and unloading at the three sites in Germany, Wales and Estonia. The first container comprises the storage tank for the ensiled biomass, the device for hydro-thermal conditioning as well as the screw press for mechanical dehydration. Furthermore, this container contains a small office room and a dryer for manual feeding to provide biomass for combustion tests. In the second container the digestion of the press fluids is carried out by a fermenting unit of 24 m3 including all necessary components. It comprises another storage tank for the press fluid and three digesters. The plant is designed for continuous processing of biomass (350 kg silage per day) as well as for investigations on small amounts of biomass to cover large variabilities of different sites. In addition, a mobile lab for different analysis was installed.

Mobile demonstration unit during transport and in operation; mobile analytical lab. After arrival of the plant at the German site in the Vogelsberg region (Sonnenhof farm in Frischborn) all needed connections (electricity, water) were organised and the staff of the University of Kassel was briefed in assembly of the prototype by the manufacturer of the plant. Within the first three months of plant operation main modifications had to be done by the manufacturer and University of Kassel. In this first phase a technician of the company was at the plant 3 days a week on average and also local craftsmen (electrician, metalworker) provided support. Most of the technical modifications of the prototype were part of the warranty. At the end of this period, two staff members of Kassel University were able to run the plant without external assistance. However, an unaccompanied operation of the plant by the local farmers was not recommendable since the technical system is very complex and the conditioning process is dependent on permanent control. Almost all of the technical modifications were accomplished before the plant was shipped out of Germany for the first time. Due to the delay of plant delivery the original time schedule of the European circuit had to be adapted during the second transnational meeting in March of 2010 in the Vogelsberg region in Germany together with the transnational partners. The project team agreed in consent with all relevant partners from Vogelsberg (DE), EE and UK that the delay should be buffered by shortening the length of the stay at the Vogelsberg region, by using the buffering times that were included in the original time schedule and by combining the two stays in UK to a longer test run in UK lasting 5 months to save transport and assembly/dismantling times. The following figure gives an overview of the demonstration runs inluding transport times. 2010

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

DEEEUK

20111 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

DEEEUK

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Adapted time schedule of the European demonstration circuit


Between the first visit in Estonia and the shipment to UK there was a brief stop of the plant in Germany at the manufacturer’s site to repair some important components of the digestion unit. Transport of the mobile plant was carried out by a transport company, which carried out the road haulage to harbours, organised the shipping and also organised the road transport in Latvia/Estonia and in the UK. Vehicle test certificate of the trailer which has to be done every 6 month was also done by this company, which is located close to the coordinating partner. After the last stay of the plant in Estonia in 2011 the plant was shipped to the experimental farm of the coordinating partner (University of Kassel) in Witzenhausen where it still serves for demonstration runs for visitors from new interested regions and in the framework of conferences and student excursions. Deliverables of this action:

Annex 11 Continuing Maintenance along the Manual of the mobile demonstration unit

Standardised harvesting and processing methods (Action 1.2) Within project months 1 and 2 a standardised and transnational test procedure was developed (Common Protocol) and discussed and adopted during the first meeting in March 2009 with all partners. It served as a basis for consistent investigations at all partner sites in Germany, Wales and Estonia. The Common Protocol is attached to this report (Annex 12). At each site (Germany, Wales, Estonia) 6 representative grassland areas have been selected for scientific investigations (‘experimental areas’). In addition, at 3 of the 6 areas (‘demonstration areas’) biomass was harvested by large scale machinery to provide silage for the continuous operation of the prototype. Per experimental area, three plots have been established to cover the large variability of grassland communities. Thus, altogether 18 grassland plots were investigated in each of the partner regions, adding up to 54 plots within the whole project. The figure below shows the experimental set-up at each site.

Demonstration area 1/experimental area 1

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated



Experimental area 4 Experimental area 5 Experimental area 6

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized


Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized


Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized


Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Fertilized

Untreated

Experimental set-up at each partner site


The harvest of the demonstration areas was carried out in 2009 by an agricultural service provider using large scale technique. The round bales produced were stored till the operation of the prototype started. The experimental areas were harvested using small scale mowers and choppers. The biomass was cut, chopped and directly ensiled in 60 l plastic barrels. In 2009 and 2010, 54 barrels were ensiled each. Yield determination and investigations on the botanical inventory were continued in 2011. The harvest took place in the first two weeks in July, however, due to weather conditions, it could be later and in UK even in October for some areas. Investigations on silage quality were carried out in collaboration and under guidance of the University of Bonn (Partner 5). Firstly the small boxes (216 units) had to be constructed by the technical staff of the University of Kassel. After finishing of construction the boxes were sent to the partner sites in Wales and Estonia. The small boxes were filled with silage and the respective additives in 2009 and in 2010 and shipped to the laboratory of the University of Bonn.

Large scale harvest, small scale harvest and chopping, filling of the barrels After the start-up phase of the prototype processing of small amounts of biomass from the experimental areas started in June of 2010. A work plan adapted to the technical basic functional conditions of the plant was developed to guarantee standardised methods and repeatable results. Processing of the biomass for scientific purpose was done together with experienced staff of Kassel University both in Estonia and Wales. The silage that was conserved in 60-l-barrels was manually filled in the conditioning system and pre-treated with fresh water at a temperature of 25°C for 30 minutes. Subsequently, the mashed silage was dewatered by the screw press with a rotational speed of 3 revolutions per minute. Taking samples for chemical analyses have already been described in the Common Protocol. Biomass samples were shipped to Germany where chemical analyses were conducted. Press fluid samples were put into the freezer directly after processing and later shipped to the central lab in Germany by one-day transport to avoid melting. Deliverables of this action:

Annex 12 Common protocol (already attached to the interim report)

Demonstration runs in 3 European locations (Action 1.3) In preparation of the demonstration runs the time schedule of the circuit of the mobile prototype was discussed and agreed among the partners during the first and second transnational meetings. Furthermore, all issues of the required infrastructure that is needed to operate the mobile unit were clarified (see Common protocol, Annex 12). Time schedule of demonstration runs is shown in Action 1.1. Apart from the first stay of the plant in Germany in 2010, the demonstration runs generally started with assembly of the plant under guidance of the project team of the University of Kassel. Depending on the availability of local staff resources, assembly took 1 to 3 days. The building up was followed by the processing of the small scale samples, which have been conserved before. Per demonstration run, 18 60-l-barrels had to be processed and the


respective samples of silage, press cake and press fluid had to be taken, dried and stored respectively frozen. Barrel processing was conducted by the local project partner and at least one member of the German project team according to the guidelines of the Common Protocol. It took 1 to 2 weeks. After barrel processing, which served for creating a large scientific data base, the prototype was used for conversion of round bales and public demonstration events. The latter was done by the local project partners after training of the local staff (partner expert staff) at the spot by team members of the lead partner. At the end of the stay, about one week was needed for cleaning and safe dismantling of the plant. Site specific developments and activities are described below. Report from the German site: Apart from the official inauguration on 10th of March of 2010, the start of the demonstration events took place on 8th of April with high ranked politicians from the county and the state Environmental Ministry. The event was featured in state TV of Hesse. Within the following weeks there were a lot of theoretical and practical demons-tration and learning events as described in WP 4, also during the second run in 2011. The farm (Sonnenhof, DE-36341 Lauterbach-Frischborn) proved to be a very good site to run the plant as the complete infrastructure to operate the plant was available. A concrete slab could be used for installing the plant. There was plenty space for visiting events. Due to the excellent cooperation with the owner of the farm all minor problems in the start-up phase could be successfully tackled. Detailed description of the start-up phase is given in the report on the technical feasibility (Annex 21). Report from the Estonian site: In 2010, the demoplant was situated at Rulli farm (Rulli talu, Altnurga küla, Puurmani vald, Jõgevamaa, EE-49002). The farm was easily accessible as it is next to the Tallinn-Tartu road. An oral agreement with the local farm owner was done already in 2009 and the official collaboration contract was signed in spring 2010. This farm was chosen because there was an already existing and very good cooperation with the farmer. The same farmer owns 5 ha NATURA 2000 grassland and one of EMU’s demonstration / experi-mental sites is located on his land. The main task was to run the plant, which went generally well. One problem was that due to problems of material flow inside of the prototype the silage had to be chopped beforehand. For this pre-treatment a chopper was borrowed from Technical Institute of EULS. However, working with original sieve caused clogging of the chopper and therefore another sieve with larger holes had to be constructed. In 2011, the plant was operated at the University farm close to Tartu (Eerika Farm OÜ, Aretuse 6, Märja, Tähtvere vald, Tartu Maakond, EE-61406,). The new site compared to the stay in 2010 was chosen to reduce driving times of the staff from Tartu.


Report from the Welsh site: The setting up of the PROGRASS processing plant has proved in practice to be relatively problem free. Initially, the idea was to site the plant up ADAS Pwllpeiran in close proximity to three sets of experimental/demonstration areas being used in the PROGRASS project. This site was ideally suited for demonstration purposes, with all the required facilities present or in the near vicinity as well as being close to the harvesting areas. However, it soon became apparent that immediate technical backup, in case of any electrical or mechanical failure, would be limited. Therefore, the decision was taken in late 2009 to select a site at IBERS Gogerddan near Aberystwyth (IBERS Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, SY23 3EB, UK). The decision to switch sites proved advantageous with the new site providing virtually all of the requirements needed for the processing plant. The location was on a large level concrete base and this coupled with good vehicular access readily facilitates the easy placement of the large and heavy processing plant. Furthermore the selected location is away from a busy working farmyard with high levels of agricultural traffic affording visitors at demonstration and learning events a high degree of safety whilst minimising potential distraction. After barrel processing the samples were shipped from the partner sites to the central lab of the lead partner in Kassel. The following tables show the number and type of chemical analysis. Number of biomass samples from harvest of 2009 (silage was processed in 2010) Type of sample Dry matter Ashes Organic

constituents* Mineral

constituents** Weende

constituents Methane

yield Raw material (harvest) 54 54 54 - 54 - Silage 54 54 54 54 54 - Press cake 54 54 54 54 54 - Press fluid 54 54 - - - 54

Number of biomass samples from harvest of 2010 (silage was processed in 2011) Type of sample Dry matter Ashes Organic

constituents* Mineral

constituents** Weende

constituents Methane

yield Raw material (harvest) 54 54 54 - 54 - Silage 54 54 54 54 54 - Press cake 54 54 54 54 54 - Press fluid 54 54 - - - 54 * carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulphur ** potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, phosphor, zinc, manganese, copper, chlorine

Altogether, 54 samples from raw material, silage, press cake and press fluid each have been analysed in 2009 and in 2010, adding up to a total of 432 samples. Experimental tests of the combustion performance of press cakes According to the original plan, all combustion tests should have been carried out at the partner´s test furnace of MAWERA (VIESSMANN). However, during the bilateral meeting of German project team members at the headquarters of MAWERA in Bregenz, Austria, developed another combustion test strategy. The reason for this modification was that the combustion tests at the MAWERA site are dependent on big amounts of press cake (more than 2 t per test run) because of its large-scale oven of 350 kW. As a result of the time-consuming start-up phase of the plant at the German site, the quantities of produced press cake were not available at an early stage of the project to do the combustion testing in MAWERA’s large scale ovens (suitable e.g. for large municipal buildings, hotels normally run with wood chips). In order to accelerate the testing a preliminary small scale test phase was carried out at Kassel University. Combustion tests were done in February of 2011 at the Department of Waste Engineering of the University of Kassel in smaller test furnaces of about 25 kW, allowing authoritative data gathering with regard to reproducibility and all important combustion parameters like emissions of harmful gases and particulate matter and ash characteristics.


The work plan of the combustion tests has been subdivided into two parts. The first part dealt with combustion tests of the press cake from two PROGRASS sites in mixture with wood chips, the second one is a broadly based investigation of ash characteristics of all the PROGRASS sites. As from previous results already known, solid fuels from grasslands can not achieve the quality of wooden materials, although the quality of the press cake is significantly improved compared to the untreated biomass. One possibilty to improve the combustion performance is mixing with wood chips, for which reason test series of press cake/wood chip-mixture was included into the experimental set-up apart from the mono-combustion of press cake. The large-scale combustion tests in cooperation with MAWERA were conducted in June/July of 2011 after producing the necessary quantities of press cake for the big oven of MAWERA during the second stay of the prototype at the German site in spring/summer of 2011. About 50m3 solid fuel of the overall 100m3, which have been produced over the whole project life time, where burned at the partner site of MAWERA. Results on the solid fuel characteristics and the combustion performance are given in Annex 223.

Small scale and large scale ovens used for the combustion experiments. Concluding, both tests in small and large scale ovens showed a calm and steady process in terms of flame formation and stability. Ash removal worked without problems although tendencies of slagging were observed in the small scaled pellet oven and the large scale tests. However, deposits were detected at the furnace walls when using the large scale technique. This problem presumably can be solved by better pellet quality resulting in a reduced release of solids by the air stream. NOx emissions could be significantly reduced by the use of an appropriate furnace design such as a double-staged system with substochiometric conditions during fuel gasification. This worked also very well when using the large scale oven with NOx release that was by far below the legal limits (German directives). Whereas the emissions of CO were above the maximal level using small scale ovens, they could be lowered to a very good level with the large scale technique with optimal settings. Particulate matter will have to be reduced by a dust filter. SO2 emissions were very low and will not cause any problems. Investigation on ash fusibility revealed that softening of the ashes from PROGRASS fuels starts at a temperature level comparable to high quality woodchips (1100 - 1200 °C). This indicates that standard ovens used for woodchip combustion are suitable concerning this parameter. Melting of the ashes was detected only at temperatures of about 1300 °C which is above the temperature level of ovens used for biomass combustion at the desired dimension less than 300 kW. Deliverables of this action:

Deliverable 13 Demonstration runs in 3 European locations as described in the report above and documented in the annexes of WP4 (e.g. participant lists)


5.1.2 Workpackage 2: FEASIBILITY Study on the Technical Feasibility (Action 2.1) The study on the technical feasibility comprises the assessment of the entire process chain of fuel supply including ensiling of the grassland biomass, processing by the mobile demonstration unit, compacting of the press cake and its use in combustion systems. Silage quality Under guidance of the project partner University of Bonn all of the 54 plots in Germany, Wales and Estonia have been investigated in 2009 and 2010 in terms of harvesting technology. The fibrous feedstock has a special demand looking at the ensiling technology. Whereas the mowing technology is state of the art technology, ensiling is more challenging compared to intensively managed grasslands or energy crops because of the lower content of nutrients that are needed for fermentation during conservation. Chopped biomass from each plot was conserved by ensiling in small mini-silos with a size of about 3 litres. Prior to ensiling, three subsamples per plot were treated with 3 different types of additives aiming at the improvement and stabilisation of the conservation process. Another subsample served as an untreated control. Altogether, 216 mini silos have been processed in 2009 and 2010 each. As the most important results of these investigations it can be concluded that silage losses can be minimised also on semi-natural grassland communities harvested at advanced vegetation stages, if proper harvest and biomass treatment technologies are applied, which includes appropriate silage additives.

Spraying of silage additives, mixing of the sub-samples and filling of the mini-silos. Processing by the prototype The conception of the prototype had to meet several important targets, such as mobility, appropriateness for demonstration events, ability for the provision of a large database, supply of large amounts of solid fuel by continuous operation as well as the assessment of the technical feasibility. For this purpose, its design aimed at the implementation of the main technical processing steps of the IFBB procedure including hydrothermal conditioning of the grassland silage, mechanical dehydration into the press cake and press fluid as well as press cake drying and press fluid digestion and subsequent biogas combustion. The mobile IFBB processing unit was constructed on top of trailer chassis in two 20 ft. containers. This solution allowed quick assembly after the transport, start of operation and dismantling at the partner sites without the need of a probably expensive lift and preparation of the standing area. Peripheral equipment like stairs and handrails of the entrance platforms were transported inside of the containers and could be easily built up for operation and demonstration. Technical devices of the IFBB prototype are divided into 8 construction groups (CG) (4 in each container) and are listed and partly shown below. Detailed description of the functioning of the demonstration unit is given in the study on the technical feasibility (Annex 21).


Container 1: Container 2: - CG 1: Delivery and dosage of the biomass - CG 4: Press fluid storage and dosage - CG 2: Conditioning - CG 5: Digestion

- CG 3: Dewatering - CG 6: Digestate disposal - CG 7: Heat supply - CG 8: Heating system container 2 and

press cake drying

Concerning the operation of the different devices, the whole IFBB prototype was equipped with a stored program control and an operation management control in container 1. Each container had a separate switch cabinet for the respective components. A graphic user interface of the operation management control showed all technical components and their status and allowed operation of the prototype. In addition, the switch cabinets were equipped with switches on the front side, which allowed also manual operation of all components. After delivery of the prototype in February of 2010, several modifications had to be done in the following months in order to improve and optimise the technical performance. The pictures below illustrate some of the major modifications.

- Biomass feeding: The chopping length was too long to be able to get it through the storing and feeding system. For that reason, an additional chopper had to be installed.

- Biomass dosing: Dosing of the biomass from the silage storage tank into the screw-

conveyors and subsequent conditioning should be done continuously. The fibrous material that tends to bridging could not be conveyed by the original screws, for which reason a modification to moving panels was done. There was a significant improvement, nevertheless there was need of manual intervention sometimes.


- Sensor systems: Some of the sensors used for detecting filling levels had to be changed. For example, original sensors of the mash water storage tank had to be replaced by inductive sensors with corresponding metal floater as solids of the mash water impeded output of correct signals.

- Screw press: The outlet port for the press cake which was designed for biomass of shorter chopping length often blocked and made manual intervention necessary. Therefore a modification was carried out by the manufacturer of the screw press.

- Gas storage tank: The original gas bag, which stored the gas between the interval operation of the gas burner, showed unacceptable range of pressure while filling and emptying. The bag was replaced by a gas bell ensuring constant pressure.

After the modifications had been done, processing of small scale samples and round bales was conducted at the partner sites. Input and output parameters were investigated in terms of different research questions. Altogether, 54 silage samples were processed in 2010 and 2011 each, from harvested biomass originating from 54 grassland plots (DE, UK, EE) in 2009 and 2010. Results of the silage quality are shown in Annex 21. Results on biogas yields from press liquid digestion are given in Annex 221. Solid fuel characteristics are described in Annex 223. Summarising the conception, starting-up and operation of the prototype, there are several conclusions that can be drawn after the project implementation.


First of all, the mobility of the IFBB unit has been an ambitious aim, as the complete technical set-up had to fit in two containers. For that reason, a lot of devices had to be constructed for that special purpose and also at a small scale, with the consequence of technical modifications that had to be carried out during the start-up phase. Most of the changes had to be done due to the scale of the prototype and were not related to the IFBB technique itself. After 3 months of continuous improvements the prototype was ready for operation and to achieve the objectives of PROGRASS. The set-up of the prototype was very well designed for the demonstration of the bioenergy system. All of the important technical devices were accessible for the visitors, who went into the containers in groups of 5 to 8 persons, and could be seen in operation. The plant in operation was a perfect tool for a complete understanding of the technical approach, in addition to a theoretical introduction, which was usually given before the visit of the prototype. Beside the demonstration purpose, the prototype was also able to generate a large data base in a scientific sense, but also looking at the further practical implementation of the procedure. In particularly the conditioning and control system were adapted to this important target of the project. On the other hand, the prototype worked for a long time in continuous operation to produce larger amounts of press cake that was needed for the combustion tests. Finally, the two years lasting European circuit created a lot of knowledge in terms of the assessment of the technical feasibility. Particularly concerning the substrate handling and the dimensioning of technical components the prototype helped tremendously on the medium-term strategy to a full scale and commercial IFBB plant. Before the produced solid fuel was burned in different types of combustion systems, the press cake had to be compacted. In cooperation with to local manufactures of pressing units briquets as well as pellets were produced. Both were of acceptable quality, however, there is still need to optimise this step of fuel production.

Briquets Pellets Deliverables of this action:

Annex 21 Study on the technical feasibility Calculating/Modelling of specific fuel production (Action 2.2) Data that were obtained by silage processing through the prototype and subsequent chemical analysis, done in the central lab of Kassel University, formed the basis for different integrated site specific assessments. Data were used to evaluate the energy efficiency of the whole IFBB process. Furthermore, nutrient flows were calculated based on mass flows occurring during the process of mechanical separation. Finally, chemical characteristics of the silage and the derived press cakes were assessed in terms of their appropriateness for thermal use.


Energy efficiency Conversion efficiency of the 18 grassland sites of PROGRASS has been evaluated by considering 4 different options of energetic conversion: integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) as a (1) stand-alone and an (2) add-on system as well as (3) dry fermentation and (4) hay combustion. On average, IFBB as a stand-alone system obtained a conversion efficiency of 44. 7 %. This value could be increased by combining the IFBB system with an existing biogas plant to 52.9 %. Whereas the conversion efficiency of the dry fermentation system was remarkably lower (16.9 %) due the limited digestibility of the mature biomass, the hay combustion system reached a level (53.8) that was comparable to the IFBB add-on system. The results clearly showed that procedures with thermo-chemical conversion outperformed bio-chemical use by anaerobic digestion, as a result of chemical characteristics that are quite different from arable energy crops such as maize or cereals. Whereas the direct combustion of the field dried hay obtained the highest conversion efficiencies, the IFBB has significant advantages considering practicability and technical use. On the one hand, field drying to conserve the grassland biomass is not possible in many European regions because of wet land or weather conditions with frequent rain fall. Particularly in case that grassland sites are small in size and widely distributed, just-in-time harvest that is needed to produce hay of good quality could be problematic. On the other hand, leaching and pressing of the biomass remarkably improves the solid fuel characteristics, resulting in higher prices for the fuel and less requirements on the combustion technology. The evaluation of the conversion efficiency is the first step of a holistic approach to assess the benefit of bioenergy systems. However, it does not take into account how much fossil energy is needed in addition to the internal energy demand, which is covered by biogenic co-, intermediate and final products (heat, electricity) of the bioenergy system itself. Furthermore, it does not consider the value of different energy forms and also not saving potentials of carbon dioxide and fossil resources. For this reason, conversion efficiency gives valuable information on the potential of bioenergy systems, but comprehensive assessment has to be added. Life cycle assessment of the IFBB system is object of the Annex 324. Nutrient budgets The mass flows of all mineral elements were in the range of previous experiments with slightly different values which are to explain with differences in mashing temperatures and hydrothermal conditioning treatment. This result proved that the up-scaling process from laboratory to prototype scale was successful and did lead to the same positive results for mass flows of mineral elements. Minerals that are detrimental to thermal use could be remarkably reduced in the fuel through the mashing and separation. This action also investigated the factors influencing the mass flows. It could be shown that the fibre content is an important factor influencing nutrient budgets within the IFBB system with the tendency of increasing mass flows into the press fluid with increasing fibre concentration. The botanical parameters i.e. cover of plant functional groups, also proved to be influencing factors on mass flows of nutrients. Further research is needed to investigate the influencing factors on mass flows and nutrient budget in the IFBB system and their exact functionality to reach the aim of improving mass flows of elements into the press fluid. Solid fuel characteristics The investigation on chemical characteristics of semi-natural grassland biomasses both treated and untreated according to the PROGRASS system showed that there is a need of improving the quality of the biomass before energetic conversion. Due to high variability of chemical characteristics of the semi-natural biomass it is impossible to produce a good quality solid fuel from semi-natural grasslands without any treatment of the biomass. The high ash content as well as the concentration of K, Cl, S and N prevents combustion in common standard technique combustion units. After treatment, the problems of high Cl, S and K contents in the fuel could be eliminated, thereby improving the quality of these


biomasses for combustion. However, N and ash content of the biomasses was still high. There are technical measures as state of the art technology to deal with high ash and N content of fuels, so these problems are to be solved through adequate combustion technique. Fibre content of the silage and botanical composition of the silage could be found as influencing parameters on solid fuel quality. In general it can be stated that old and mature biomasses (high fibre concentration) and grass rich and legume poor swards are best suitable for energy conversion according to the IFBB system. Looking at the combustion tests, adapted furnace technologies (staged combustion systems) could be identified to reduce NOx emissions to a low level that is by far below the legal thresholds. Also the ash melting behaviour did not cause any problems, due to the reduced mineral contents and also the use of the above mentioned technology. However, further research should aim at improving also the compaction to pellets or briquettes, in order to reduce the release of dust during the combustion. Deliverables of this action:

Annex 221 Evaluation report on energy efficiency Annex 222 Evaluation report on nutrient budgets Annex 223 Evaluation report on solid fuel characteristics Annex 224 Report on small scale combustion tests Annex 225 Report on large scale combustion tests


5.1.3 Workpackage 3: SUSTAINABILITY Examining the socio-economic effects of PROGRASS (Action 3.1) Pre-study about the economy of NATURA 2000 grassland habitats An overall framework for full cost accounting of NATURA 2000 grassland management – identifying key indicators – was set in order to display NATURA 2000 grassland economics for several land use alternatives (see Figure below). Therefore, as a basis for subsequent investment calculations, grassland production costs were assessed in the three European PROGRASS partner regions. In the Vogelsberg region, Germany, the grassland substrate/silage production costs account for 22 € ha-1 yr-1, in Ceredigion, Wales, for 27 € ha-1

yr-1 and in Tartu, Estonia, for 14 € ha-1 yr-1, which corresponds to 5.7, 6.8 and 4.6 € t-1 DM for the three locations, respectively. Since substrate costs play an important role in the IFBB investment calculations, multiple effects on these basic substrate production costs calculations were identified and modelled by sensitivity and break even analysis. These effects include e.g. reduced cutting frequencies and dry matter yields as well as the impact of compensatory and direct payments.

Framework conditions and key indicators for NATURA 2000 grassland economics Evaluation reports on socio-economic effects for regional agriculture and development aspects In order to comprehensively assess the socio-economic effects of the implementation of the PROGRASS approach a variety of actions was executed for the three partner regions:

1. In each partner region expert interviews with direct personal contact with four representatives per region from agricultural counselling, agricultural administration, NATURA 2000 site management and science were conducted. The interviews covered a regional analysis (typical land use systems, socio-economics, current situation of


farmers), requirements and conservation costs of NATURA 2000 site management, as well as a bio-energy situation analysis.

2. In each partner region an explorative farm survey was conducted in order to assess the farmers´ present farming situation, their current and future options of semi-natural grassland management and preservation, their interest in bio-energy generation in general and the IFBB process in particular, as well as their personal willingness to invest and to carry risks. In the Vogelsberg region, Germany, a total of 15 farmers were willing to fill out the questionnaires in attendance of the interviewer. In case of the two other partner regions, persons who had attended the PROGRASS information meetings who had left their contact data, were directly contacted, but no useful results could be obtained from this method. Therefore the translated semi-structured questionnaires were sent to the project partners to distribute amongst farmers. In Estonia, a total of 20 questionnaires was sent to a list of farmers known by the project partners. With a comparatively good reflux 9 questionnaires could be analyzed. In Wales, a total of 120 questionnaires were distributed at counselling and information events for farmers by the local PROGRASS partners. In addition, farmers or land managers from countryside management or national park authorities were contacted directly. Those contact dates had also been gathered at PROGRASS information events in Wales by the Welsh project partners. However, there was no questionnaire reflux at all. This could have had several reasons: a.) Missing personal contact during interview completion; the PROGRASS partners in Wales also assumed, that b.) farmers usually get overloaded with questionnaires in Wales, c.) perhaps felt that they do not have enough of the information required or d.) are still too much involved in their current farming practices and do not have great interest in bio-energy generation yet. This was also confirmed by the regional analysis conducted in Ceredigion. In any case and region, the number of received questionnaires did not allow for any statistical analysis but should rather be seen as an exploration of framework conditions and possibilities of implementation of PROGRASS in the respective regions.

3. A regional analysis was completed for each region covering topics such as a specification of agrarian structures, socio-economic characteristics, national and European legal implications, and a bio-energy situation analysis. A comprehensive listing and semi-quantitative evaluation of the most important parameters is shown in the table below.

The final evaluation of all relevant parameters shows, that a successful PROGRASS implementation is most probable for the Vogelsberg region as well as in Estonia, if certain parameters can be optimized. Even though a PROGRASS implementation in Wales seems unlikely in the short term future, recently there has been shown serious interest by a number of national parks which are open for the IFBB-technology, however.


Checklist of regional requirements and their evaluation for a successful PROGRASS implementation in the PROGRASS partner regions (a “+” implies an advantageous influence of a certain factor on the PROGRASS system, a “-“ implies a disadvantageous influence of a certain factor on the PROGRASS system )

4. In order to be able to assess potential socio-economic effects for agriculture and development aspects of a PROGRASS implementation detailed economic investment calculations for upscaled PROGRASS bio-energy plants were completed for each region. As shown in the figure below, the profitability (Internal Rate of Return, IRR) in any case lies above the interest rate for external capital. Therefore both the IFBB plants as stand-alone option (IFBB-SA) as well as the IFBB-Add-on (IFBB-AO) to a conventional biogas plant can be managed profitably. However, in order to meet the risk potential of a newly developed technology, an investor would more likely decide for the IFBB-Add-on alternative.


Profitability key figure Internal Rate of Return (IRR;%) for two IFBB plants as a stand-alone system (IFBB-SA) and an add-on system to a conventional biogas plant (IFBB-AO)

The dynamic investment calculations also cover detailed sensitivity analyses under different framework conditions and identified pellet price, pellet price increase rate and investment costs as the most important economic drivers for both IFBB plant alternatives.

5. The display of potential socio-economic effects of a PROGRASS implementation – based on the PROGRASS plant economics – was covered by describing the influences on agriculture on single farm and regional level, the co-operation and synergy effects, effects on job creation and migration into cities, the regional value added as an estimation for inter-sectoral economic development, influences on nature preservation and tourism, saving potentials considering EU-agri-environmental schemes and a description and economic assessment of possible land use conflicts.

In order to assess the job creation potential the complete process chain of all processes connected to the IFBB bio-energy generation was displayed and evaluated by associating their respective work load potential (Figure below). A total number of 4.7 jobs can be created by implementing one exemplar IFBB plant. A simple extrapolation of this figure to the number of IFBB plants based on the regional grassland potential, the job creation potential adds up to approximately 68 jobs in the Vogelsberg region (DE), 25 in Ceredigion (Wales) and about 44 jobs in Tartu county, Estonia. A break even-analysis of the IFBB plant economics (parameter variation analysis c.p.) displayed theoretical saving potentials of EU compensatory payments for the IFBB-SA system of 41 € (Germany), 54 € (Wales) and 20 € (Estonia) as well as 280 €, 291 € and 164 € per hectare for the IFBB-AO system for the regarded regions, respectively. The dynamic investment calculations covered detailed sensitivity and break-even analyses under different framework conditions and identified pellet price, pellet price increase rate and investment costs as the most important economic drivers for both IFBB plant alternatives. As the IFBB Add-on system displayed very promising economic results, break-even analysis also showed that this system can cope well even with large substrate transport distances of more than 120 km or with other potentially unfavourable framework conditions in the future.


aPermanent employment bNon-recurring employment Up- and downstream fields of an IFBB production chain

Comparative European report In this report a comparison of regional aspects was performed in detail, concerning the potentials for grassland and other residual potentials, the subsidy and land rental situation for farmers as well as the bio-energy situation. Furthermore the stakeholder assessments and the PROGRASS plant economics under different regional preconditions were compared, while, in addition, a comparison of regional PROGRASS implementation effects was performed. A comparison of the regional value added showed a total value creation potential of e.g. up to 46 million € as seen over the 20 years life span of an IFBB-AO plant in the Vogelsberg region, Germany (Figure 4).

Potential for the creation of value added for different IFBB systems in the PROGRASS partner regions


Acting recommendations for stakeholders – contribution from the socio-economic part For the acting recommendations report a catalogue of criteria based on the experiences made in the three PROGRASS partner regions was developed, that covers all the relevant criteria that should be considered when contemplating a PROGRASS plant implementation. The most relevant criteria are listed in the table (see above). A reflection of the lessons learned stresses the following approach for a successful PROGRASS implementation: If regional stakeholders consider the possibilities of an implementation of the PROGRASS approach, feasibility studies should be carried out that cover very precisely all the above listed criteria relevant for an ecologically and economically viable, sound and sustainable PROGRASS plant operation. A comprehensive assessment of the PROGRASS approach in certain regions can, according to the experiences made during the PROGRASS project, only reliably and trustworthy evaluated, if both stakeholder assessments and economic assessments are carried out and brought together in a comprehensive final assessment. Contributions of WP 3.1 concerning experience reports on campaigning in rural areas, procedural descriptions as well as demonstration and learning materials have been developed and compiled in collaboration with WP 4 and were included in the PROGRASS binders and Layman reports. Case studies and micro studies In closes collaboration with WP4 six regional micro studies from interested new PROGRASS network partners were carried out. The relevant questionnaire feedstock was established In WP 3.1 to prepare those studies for the regions of Flanders (BE), Zlin (CZ), Pomurje (SL), Zilina (SK) and Brittany (FR). A total number of 8 case studies covering descriptions and experience reports on local projects were carried out since the case studies could ideally be combined with economic assessments based on PROGRASS plant feasibility questionnaires developed by WP 3.1. The case studies were carried out on local potential PROGRASS projects in Belgium (1), Germany (3), Estonia (2), United Kingdom (1) and Austria (1). The assessment of the local projects revealed once again, that the PROGRASS concept will be dependent on very specific framework conditions. For potential IFBB plant operators with a scarce land availability of grassland suitable for substrate production, a small-sized IFBB plant did not show positive economic results. However, for a.) potential plant locations with a large scale provision of substrate both from semi-natural grassland but also from other sources such as e.g. roadside material, b.) for plants with an add-on option to a conventional biogas plant as well as for c.) plant locations with a realistic opportunity to receive “waste-substrate” for free, reasonable or even good economic results can be expected. Web-based simulation model An ex-ante simulation model was developed as a decision support tool for various stakeholder groups. This simulation model covers all economically relevant parameters such as investment and labour costs, subsidies for grassland preservation and the generation of bio-energy, revenues for electricity (feed-in tariffs) and grass pellets, substrate costs including transportation costs and harvest yields, grassland mechanization and specific grassland rents. The simulation model is based on dynamic investment calculations and enables users (various stakeholder groups) to quickly adapt each single parameter to the specific conditions of a specific region. In collaboration with WP 4 the simulation model was made available on the PROGRASS website. The simulation model´s user interface is displayed in the figure below.


User interface of the web-based PROGRASS simulation model Deliverables of this action:

Annex 311 Pre-Study about the economy of NATURA grassland habitats Annex 312 Evaluation report on socio-economic effects for regional

agriculture and development aspects – Vogelsberg, Germany Annex 313 Evaluation report on socio-economic effects for regional

agriculture and development aspects – Ceredigion, Wales Annex 314 Evaluation report on socio-economic effects for regional

agriculture and development aspects – Tartu Estonia Annex 315 Comparative European report Annex 316 Acting recommendations for stakeholders – three languages Annex 317 PROGRASS Case studies

Monitoring the effects on NATURA grassland habitats (Action 3.2) Using biomass from semi-natural grassland sites involves several ecological impacts that have been considered in this action. This concerns the status of the NATURA sites itself as well as effects on the atmosphere and consumption of resources. Effects on botanical diversity and nutrient balances Conservation of the botanical inventory is the superior aim of land management of NATURA sites. Securing the species composition, which have been established for several decades by extensive forage production, is dependent on regular cutting and biomass removal as also done in the test plots of PROGRASS. With the aim to test the development of the biodiversity status, comprehensive botanical analysis was conducted on the 54 test plots. As described in the Common Protocol (see Annex 12), in each test plot an area of 25 m3 was investigated in terms of the cover of the respective plants in the start phase of the project in May/June 2009. The same was done in 2011. As it can be concluded from the figure below, biodiversity status could be at least maintained through regular cut and subsequent use for energy recovery, or even improved. In particular those sites, which have been rarely cut in the past, have got a strong increase in species numbers. Detailed analysis and interpretations on biodiversity aspects are given in the report on biodiversity criteria (Annex 323).


Apart from this investigation programme an additional research question was tackled at the German sites. At each site 3 additional plots were established where the digestate from the IFBB process was applied. Furthermore, a third treatment was conducted where the grassland was only mulched without subsequent biomass removal. Although potential findings of those investigations need long-term experiments, there is already a trend to yield increase on the fertilised and mulched plots, however, without any statistical proof. These investigations will also be continued in the after-Life phase. The question of digestate return is strongly related to the nutrient balances, which are described in Annex 322 in detail. It concerns the issue of nutrient redirection and its possible effects in botanical composition through additional nutrient availability in the grassland soils.

Num

ber

of p

lant

spe

cies

-20

-10

0

10

20

30Newly established plant species 2009-2011Vanished plant species 2009-2011Net change of plant species 2009-2011

DE UK EE

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

0

Development of species numbers at the 18 European sites with three replicates each

Substitution potential of CO2 and fossil energy carriers In addition to the previously mentioned ecological benefit of biodiversity conservation, fuel production from grassland biomass can supply renewable energy that saves CO2 emissions and fossil fuels. The quantities of saving potentials are shown in Annex 324 and were calculated based on data that were obtained during the two years lasting demonstration circuit of the prototype. The study was conducted according to the principles of life cycle assessment (LCA), considering the impact categories of non-renewable primary energy and greenhouse gas balance, as well as the acidification and eutrophication balance. Beside the assessment of the IFBB system, alternative energy systems (dry fermentation, hay combustion), an animal-based system (beef cattle husbandry) and non-refining systems (mulching, composting) have been evaluated to cover alternative management options that are in principle appropriate for maintaining the management of semi-natural grasslands. The main aim was to identify systems of management and grassland use that are promising in terms high substitution potentials of fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse gases. The following findings could be concluded: Savings of fossil fuels: Among the systems of energy recovery, thermal conversion procedures such as the integrated generation of solid fuel and biogas from biomass (IFBB) that was applied in the PROGRASS project and the hay combustion system achieved highest net savings of non-renewable primary energy carriers (44 to 54 GJ ha-1). Particularly efficient use of the grassland biomass was obtained when combining the IFBB concept with an existing infrastructure of a biogas or waste water treatment plant. Comparatively low substitution potentials were achieved in case of anaerobic digestion of the whole crop silages due to the reduced degradability of the highly lignified biomass.


Savings of greenhouse gases: Regarding the saving potentials of greenhouse gases (see figure below), the IFBB and hay combustion system also proved to be the most efficient conversion procedure (2.9 to 3.7 t CO2-eq ha-1). CO2 balance was almost equivalent when the grassland biomass was used by traditionally animal-based farming. By contrast, pure mulching of the biomass or producing compost from it led to a net release of greenhouse gases and the demand of fossil fuels was higher than the substitution and carbon sequestration effects.

Composting

Mulching

Beef cattle

IFBB (add-on)

IFBB (stand-alone)

Hay combustion

Dry fermentation HeatElectricityFertiliserMetabolisable energy

Diesel inputNon-energetic in-/direct emissions of N2ONon-energetic emissions of CH4

CHPHeating plantHeat inputElectricity input

Balance

CO2 credits

CO2 emissions

HeatElectricityFertiliserMetabolisable energy

Diesel inputNon-energetic in-/direct emissions of N2ONon-energetic emissions of CH4

CHPHeating plantHeat inputElectricity input

Balance

CO2 credits

CO2 emissions

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

t CO2-eq ha-1

emissionscredits

Saving potentials of greenhouse gases of different options of grassland management and use

Acidification and eutrophication effects: Whereas the life cycle assessment revealed significant saving potentials of CO2 and fossil fuels for the energy recovery from grassland biomass, the study also clearly stated negative impacts considering acidification and eutrophication effects. Since the release of acidifying and eutrophying emissions is increased by the use of biomass derived fuels, biogenic energy systems did not perform as well as the fossil alternative. Deliverables of this action:

Annex 321 “Global” European Pre-Study (already included in the interim report)

Annex 322 Evaluation report nutrient balances Annex 323 Study on botanical composition and diversity criteria including

a comparison of results with national lists of special targeted species and habitats

Annex 324 Evaluation report on CO2 substitution potential and life cycle assessment

Deliverables 3.2 - Study on botanical composition and - Report on comparison of results with national lists of special targeted species and habitats are both included in 323.


5.1.4 Workpackage 4 VALORISATION Valorisation (Action 4.1) The PROGRASS valorisation strategy was drafted and discussed in the first project phase and adopted in time. The original strategy, established by partner 6 was adapted and further developed during the project on basis of the findings and the experiences made. All actions of WP4 and the corresponding activities and results of other WPs (e.g. demonstration events in WP1 or the socio-economic surveys) were coordinated along this strategy and v.v. influenced its further development. The core of the valorisation strategy is a step by step procedure (Level1-3) to attract different stakeholders with the help of a modular, blended learning and consulting concept. Valorisation activities, especially the staged regional development approaches were piloted and perfected in the course of the project. Experiences: Especially in a technical project the strategic valorisation plan is of major importance since it reminds all partners to stay on track as far as dissemination, training and learning, networking and further development activities are concerned. Valorisation and dissemination materials were centrally managed, uploaded in the web-based community and distributed to the partners. To achieve a standardised and transferable effect the most important materials were translated in local languages (Complete Website, Project Flyers and project brochures). Information and initial trainings events for farmers were carried out as planned in the first project phase as described in the inception report. Information and intensive discussions with regional farmers were carried out by all partners 1, 2, 3 and 4, accompanied by partner 6 in the time of plot selection in all regions in 2009. Due to delay of the development of the mobile demonstration plant the initial internal training about harvesting was shifted in order to save travel expenses. The procedural training along a common protocol was didactically developed and the envisaged learning materials were compiled in order to create transferable contents and modules for later stages. The initial training was carried out for the partners via internet - delivered through information media, provided on the LMS (see http://prograss.eu/moodle/course/view.php?id=12; username: prograss, password: grass1234) and synchronously discussed in the online room of the PROGRASS web-portal. This way the necessary information could be conveyed to those stakeholders responsible for the harvesting and conservation actions.

Guided harvesting and conservation activities in Vogelsberg Experiences from this first phase showed that farmers must be attracted by the whole PROGRASS concept and not only by conservation and NATURA issues. Naturally they are especially interested in the added value in terms of economic advantages. A major obstacle in the first project phase was that relevant evidence for the positive economic impact could not yet be given since the relevant data were only available in the second half of the project. Additionally it turned out already at that stage that farmers alone cannot induce necessary developments for the preparation of a sound regional pre-investment concept for a decentralised energy production along the PROGRASS approach.


Hence the original concept to consult only farmers (the application referred to 40 farmers per region) on harvesting issues in the first phase was extended both in relation to the target group, contents and methodology. For the planning of the training activities a needs analysis was carried out, based on a questionnaire. The questionnaire has been applied in general information events. The evaluation pointed out that more than 50 % of polled persons were interested to attend further training related to PROGRASS. Mostly preferred thematic areas were the profitability and the operation of the plant as well as the production and marketing of the pellets. Based on the results of the needs analysis a curriculum of a training and the modular course concept for farmers and other stakeholders was created (annex 4211) which is described in the next chapter. The first element of the course consists of a basic information and training event where in total more than 700 persons attended, among them more than 200 farmers as shown in the table below. The originally envisaged number of participating farmers was exceeded.

project region

total number of participants

number of farmers

Annex

Vogelsberg-kreis 410 > 96

lists of participants of basic events in Vogelsberg (annexes 4231 – 4236; the farmers signed with “Landwirt” or “LW”)

Wales 157 > 30 annex 42310 participants of basic events in Wales; the farmers marked with F

Estonia ~ 200 > 80

lists of participants of basic events in Estonia (annexes 4237 – 4239; identification of farmers is shown in annex “4124 farmers consulting Estonia”

New partners were integrated by campaigning and transnational conferences, workshops and seminars. Performance indicator was the envisaged number of 5 new interested partner regions. By 2012 thirteen new regions in UK, BE, FR, DE, AT (2), PL, HU, IT, SK and CZ have set up collaborative relations with the PROGRASS network and participated as partner regions on the 3rd level of the PROGRASS valorisation strategy. Partly the new partner regions were attracted by the PROGRASS dissemination activities (mass-mailings, newsletters) and partly they were directly approached by the responsible project partners 6 and 9 using their large European network to attract stakeholders from potentially interested regions. Intensive information and cooperative development activities were the basis to achieve these results with these new stakeholders. The new partner regions were embedded in the PROGRASS network through the blended learning course consisting of face to face units, e-Learning and, on valorisation level3, joint collaborative workshops. Lessons learnt: As described in connection with the initial training events, the partners realised that the scope of the target groups should be enlarged from farmers to all kind of regional stakeholders in order to achieve a higher dissemination and valorisation potential. Hence the original course setting was enlarged and new course contents (like combustion issues, regional and transnational project developments etc.) were introduced. Three additional micro studies were envisaged in the project lifetime to display the specific feasibility of new PROGRASS partner-regions in relation to ecological and socio-economic potential. For this purpose a comprehensive questionnaire was established and distributed to


interested stakeholders. The returned questionnaires were analysed and compiled to micro studies, delivering also acting recommendations. At the end of the project six of those regional start-up studies have been established using the PROGRASS regional development questionnaire instrument. Lessons learnt: The micro study questionnaire is a very good tool for those stakeholders who participated in the project development workshops and are ready to go for concrete regional actions. For those stakeholders who are only “discovering” the general merits of the PROGRASS approach (Level 1) this comprehensive study would come too soon. Hence it is embedded in the e-learning phase (Level2). However, the micro-studies reveal the potential of a region in terms of ecological, technical and economic properties. Those stakeholders who filled the questionnaire with care and took more time to acquire the related information were well able to adapt the PROGRASS approach to new and other frame conditions, e.g. to convert it to cuttings from roadside verges (like for the new UK and BE partners). Eight case studies analysed the specific socio-economic conditions of 8 potential local project sites to implement a concrete PROGRASS plant in different European regions. Along a standardised checklist related to the framework conditions of a PROGRASS plant costs, revenues and profitability of the exemplar plant were calculated and conclusions for actions drawn. Based on the experiences of data collection in the first case studies a further comprehensive questionnaire was developed (annex folder 413). The case studies were coordinated by partner 1 with support from partners 6 and 9. A major problem in the development of the case studies was the missing of reliable economic data since the results from WP3 were only available in the last project phase. Hence the interdependency of the technical, economic and regional examination activities raised methodological problems as far as these case studies were concerned since some important parameters could be used at a rather late project stage only. Additionally, new PROGRASS scenarios were introduced in the project in regard to input and output factors (input: alternative raw materials like roadside cuttings and other municipal waste materials); (output: different “products” like pure grass-pellets/briquets suitable for specific boilers or mixed pellets that are blended with wood). Finally, in the final project phase, also through the input of the new project partners interesting new scenarios could be built up that enlarge the options for potential investments. Deliverables of this action:

Annex folder 412. Evaluation of the consulting of farmers & other stakeholders Annex folder 413 8 case studies (+ 1 questionnaire) Annex 414 Report on the 6 micro-studies


Dissemination (Action 4.2) Web-Portal and services In the first project months a fully fledged website was developed on the basis of a corporate design (CD) that was presented and adopted during the first meeting. All information materials were centrally updated during the whole project by partner 6 in order to safeguard the CD and also to respect the publication requirements from the LIFE+ programme. The PROGRASS portal (www.prograss.eu) was developed based on open source software integrating various dynamic services (multilingual, social software including groupware functions, shared documents, blogs etc.). The website facilitated the swift exchange of files and works both as internal and external community tool. Works carried out in this action were, apart from the technical programming and hosting services the design of front ends, database architecture and site mapping. Additionally an Online Conferencing System was introduced to facilitate the internal communication, collaboration and monitoring of the active partners. The system was also used as announcement tool for events taking place in the course of the demonstration. Public website area: All relevant contents are available in EN, DE and EE. Press releases and the news section were updated regularly and on demand by partners 6/9. Interactive animated elements were integrated to present some vivid impressions on the prototype. Restricted areas: The internal provision of relevant documents supported management and communication and the online conference facilities also helped in exchanging information and tasks. The learning management system was introduced in time and the provided information received good feed-back from the users. Lessons learnt: The project website was launched as planned and consists in June 2012 of more than 400 multilingual sub-pages and several interactive services. The website was well received and regularly updated. In the final year the website was hit 240.000 times (monthly average the portal showed 15.000 and 36.000 hits) resulting in an average of 2.000 (real) visits per month. Extrapolated to 40 months of existence this would sum up to 80.000 visits in the lifetime of the site. Content Management: As the idea to introduce regional content managers turned out not to be feasible the information was channelled through P6 and 9 who edited all contents on the website. This procedure is generally recommendable to ensure not only the necessary form but also security of the content management. The indicated persons on the website were often contacted- mainly by German but also by stakeholders from other members states (e.g. FR and BE who became PROGRASS partners later) in order to provide information and to send regular information, e.g. about events and courses. Development and delivery of the blended learning course Partners 6 and 9 developed a fully fledged modular blended learning course with 10 content units (modules) to facilitate the implementation of the PROGRASS approach in a specific region (for more details please see annex “42112_illustration_training procedure”).

- The learning modules on Level1 deliver basic information about PROGRASS and an introduction in technical and socio-economic issues. In most cases these modules were delivered in connection with the demonstrations with the mobile plant. Learning modules on Level1 aim at attracting different stakeholders in a region in a collaborative


learning approach and to convey knowledge about the basic principles of the PROGRASS approach.

- The learning modules on Level2 combine self-directed e-learning with face to face (f2f) workshops. They are aiming to support those stakeholders that are seriously interested to implement the concept in their region, to find out if the regional conditions are suitable and to get an in-depth access to all relevant aspects of the PROGRASS approach, e.g. technical, botanical, economical aspects.

- Based on these modules collaborative learning and development workshops (Level 3) are aiming to support regional stakeholders in the acquisition of financial means and joint project development.

To come to this point a modular course curriculum was established based on the main content related units. Learning objectives were described and the appropriate methodology was assigned to subunits of the course (annex “4211 modules PROGRASS course”). Course unit descriptions and sections were extracted from the scientific and technical descriptions and pamphlets, in order to reduce complexity and to prepare the learning contents in a “digestible” way. Eventually, on basis of the evolving curriculum, materials methods and learning objectives were ordered in a fitting sequence. This included the basic face to face section (Level1), self-directed e-learning incl. interactive quizzes and questionnaires combined with a second workshop (level 2) and a project development workshop (level 3) to prepare investment projects (annexes “4212 detail plan ws1 basic event”, “4213 detail plan ws2 decision”, “4214 detail plan ws3 project”, 4215 detail plan ws4 cooperative”). Based on this concept course materials, tasks, figures and all supporting materials were developed and delivered on the respective media (files in annex-folder 422). Compared with the planning the course concept was further substantiated and connected with collaborative learning and development activities. As envisaged, 10 course modules were developed. The complete concept contains 3 face-to-face parts and an extended e-Learning phase provided on the interactive PROGRASS Learning Management System (LMS).

Photos: F2F training at the prototype, theoretical input session, sceenshot LMS The trainings were carried out along a well functioning concept comprising theoretic presentations, guided on-site visits of the prototype plant and individual counselling related to specific problems and themes. In all three project regions the events followed the same procedure (for details please see annexes “4218 organisational pattern basic events”, “4219 programme basic event”, “42110 catchwords for basic event” and “42111 organisational pattern basic event”). As shown in the table below in the project lifetime more than 800 European stakeholders have been trained on Level1. The face-to-face workshops of the Level2 units were carried out at 2 locations with a total of 37 participants.


Level3 project workshops were attended by 12 participants in 3 transnational workshops that committed themselves to join the PROGRASS network and to develop joint (pre-)investment projects (with partners from CZ, AT, SL, SK, BE, UK, IT, FR).

Levels/ course modules/

Methodology location participants

number of participants

date

Estonia farmers, nature protection experts, representatives of local and regional authorities, students, interested public

~ 200 autumn 2010

Wales farmers, nature protection experts, representatives of local and regional authorities, students, interested public

157 winter 2010/ 2011

Level 1: 1: The PROGRASS project 2: on-site visit of prototype (F2F)

Vogelsberg (Germany)

farmers, nature protection experts, representatives of local and regional authorities, students, interested public

410 spring/ summer 2010

Göttingen (Germany)/ + online

representatives of Agentschap voor Natuur en Bos (management of forests and natural areas on behalf of the Flemish government)

15 09.11.11 Level 2: 3: technical components 4: inputs 5: outputs 6: profitability 7 ecological aspects (F2F& e-learning)

Eschwege (Germany)/ + online

representatives of

• district of Werra-Meißner

• district of Schwalm-Eder

• energy agency of Nordrhein-Westfalen

22 19.04.12

Level 2: 8: basic check of potentials and decision-finding (e-learning)

online

representatives of

• Flanders (Belgium)

• Zlin (Czech Republic)

• Pomurje (Slowenia)

• Zilina (Slovakia)

• Wales (Great Britain)

• Brittany (France)

>6 Sept. 2011 - April 2012

Level 3: 9: Development workshops on decentralised funded investment projects (F2F & e-learning)

Witzen-hausen (Germany) and web-based

representatives of following regions:

• Zilina (SK)

• Pomurje (SL)

• Zlin (CZ)

• Baden-Baden (DE)

• Waldviertel (AT)

• Lake Neusiedel (AT)

• Mantova (IT)

• HU

• Wales (UK)

• Brittany (FR)

• Flanders (BE)

12

Sept. 2011 - June 2012 Workshops: 12./13.09.2011 17./18.04. 2012

Lessons learnt The participants (or potential PROGRASS partners) of the trainings have different professional and regional backgrounds. There are different stakeholder groups (such as farmers and political stakeholders) with diverging interests, coming from different regions with different frame conditions and political preferences.


The diversity of stakeholders is not always a strength since it also brought about disputes among them, e.g. in case of target conflicts of farmers (high revenues from the plots) vs. administrations (maintaining the NATURA sites and the economic interest to get rid of the “organic waste materials”). Already at the stage of the first learning and counselling events (on Level1) a good and experienced moderation is needed to unite those stakeholders instead of separating them. Consequently, one of the experiences of the pilot learning phase is that in the second workshop a common (regional or transnational) project has to be established. There are two ways to reach this joint approach: firstly by matching local and regional stakeholders for a regional development project (regional seminars in Vogelsberg, Eschwege, and in Göttingen with a Belgium group) or to develop a transnational investment project (e.g. the projects DANUBENERGY and COMBINE). Both approaches were followed in PROGRASS. These collaborative learning events and workshops turned out to be extremely successful as long as a common goal and the possibility of a support funding is visible for the participants. In contrast there is no demand for extensive standardised training sessions just for information purposes. These issues were tackled in the first modules at the spot and interlinked with the e-learning offer to the Level2. It has to be concluded that the envisaged decentralised regional energy supply concept of PROGRASS is quite challenging due to the diversity of actors. Against this background the piloted (staged) approach • to first attract and learn (Level1), • to learn and explore (Level2) and • to learn and develop regional pre-investments and projects (Level3) is appropriate to reach a counselling and training offer tailored to reach new stakeholders and regions. Mass media dissemination: Newsletters: Four project newsletters (annexes 42521 – 42522) were released via web-mail to more than 3.096 recipients who were compiled in the PROGRASS database (annex 4241). The database was created from previous LIFE coordinators and partners and the scientific and learning communities of the PROGRASS partners. In addition two “internal” newsletters were released concerning activities and impressions of Blue Conrad (meanwhile the nickname of the mobile demonstration plant) on tour (annexes 42525, 42526). Print media: On the basis of a developed corporate design for PROGRASS two paper versions of the PROGRASS-flyers were produced in the first two project years – a first general version on A4 format and a 3xA5 Brochure version in the three project languages plus project posters and one roll-up (Annex folder 4253). The corporate identity (standard layout and logos, incl. the LIFE+-logo) was mainstreamed in the partnership. Two large scale project plates were designed and attached to the PROGRASS mobile plant. All media published contained the LIFE-logo and the disclaimer. Press releases and internet publications: Since the beginning of the project a variety of articles related to PROGRASS have been published in the local and regional press as well as on several websites. Overall more than 50 articles were released by Estonian, German and Welsh press (annex folder 4251).


Scientific publications: The results of the diverse research activities have been published in 15 scientific articles (annex folder 4254). They range from illustrations of the mobile prototype plant to produce solid fuel from grass harvested in NATURA grassland habitats up to complete life cycle assessments of the procedure and economic assessments of the PROGRASS approach. Poster sessions and presentations: The Estonian partner presented the PROGRASS project at 2 international and national conferences (annexes “42527 Conference Biosystems Engineering, “42528 Expedition Baltic Botanists”). In addition to the above mentioned information events the University of Kassel did three specific presentations of PROGRASS for the following target groups: local authorities, researchers, nature protection associations and farmers (annexes 42529 – 425313 PROGRASS posters 1 – 5). TV and videos: In the project lifetime five TV broadcastings reported on the PROGRASS project. Additional several internal film sequences were taken and included in technical explanations or in animated sequences of the website. The broadcastings reached a large audience and led to a number of contacts of the PROGRASS team that was reached via the internet platform. Four TV broadcastings are included on the CD. Comparison with the planning As far as the mass publications are concerned, compared with the planned deliverables all envisaged quantitative performance indicators were met or exceeded, be it the number of newsletters, the number of TV and radio performances, and the total of articles. Especially in the German state of Hesse but also on the national level the project and the PROGRASS approach received a high attention. In the last project months the PROGRASS association received approximately 1 request for further information per week from stakeholders from German municipalities. This fact shows that the “information and dissemination” actions work quite successfully. Also some of the new transnational partners were attracted by PROGRASS newsletters (BE, AT, FR). However, though mass media dissemination attracted many persons, experiences have clearly shown that sustainable regional development activities in new regions will only be introduced if stakeholders take part in the collaborative learning activities offered on Levels 2 and 3 of the PROGRASS concept.

PROGRASS binder For transfer purposes to other European regions a binder has been published consisting of more than 150 pages. It comprises 8 chapters (technical approach, biomass, harvesting and conservation, PROGRASS products, energy balances, plant economics, socio-economical aspects, procedure to introduce the PROGRASS approach in a specific region, PROGRASS registered association) containing scientific publications as well as non-scientific charts and illustrations (annex folder 426). In addition the binder comprehends a non-scientific summary of the projects’ approach, the laymen report about the project activities and results in 6 languages (EN, DE, EE, CZ, SL, IT). It had been offered to stakeholders already engaged in the development of new PROGRASS projects in their region as well to participants of the final conference. Lessons learnt: The binder is a flexible tool that can be updated with respect to the project’s progress. It offers detailed information especially for those stakeholders who show profound interest in the PROGRASS approach or in certain aspects, e.g technical or economical


questions. Because of the copyright related to the included scientific papers the binder can be handed out only on demand and not distributed as printed mass product. The concept of a modular binder system turned out successful since information can be compiled in a tailor-made way and waste of papers and materials can be avoided. Deliverables for this action:

On the webportal www.prograss.eu: Dynamic, multilingual web-portal Website content, consultation and learning offers http://prograss.eu/moodle/ for retrieving the blended learning course Blended learning training courses for stakeholders: Annex folder 421 10 learning modules (containing 12 files) Annex folder 422 learning materials (containing 70 files) Annex folder 423 workshops delivered (containing 22 lists of participants) Annex 424 dissemination database Various publications Annex folder 425 various publications (folder 4251 containing 55 press releases;

folder 4252 containing 6 external and internal newsletters and 7 posters; folder 4253 containing 3 flyers, 3 brochures and 1 roll-up; folder 4254 containing 15 scientific articles)

Annex folder 426 binder (folder 4260 containing the PROGRASS brochures (15 pages in 6 languages); folder 4261 “technical approach” containing 8 objects, folder 4262 “biomass” with 5 objects; folder 4263 “products” with 5 objects; folder 4264 “energy balance” with 2 objects; folder 4265 “plant economics” with 10 objects; folder 4266 “socio economics” with 3 objects; folder 4267 “procedure” with 4 objects; folder 4268 “registered association” with 3 objects)

The whole binder is annexed in print in a separate folder to the final report

Annex folder 427 films (5 TV films) on CD


Networking (Action 4.3) The valorisation strategy is closely connected to the memorandum since it is based on the common ideas and networking intentions of the partners (annex “431 memorandum”). The memorandum again is the basis for the common statutes of the PROGRASS association (annex “432 PROGRASS Satzung de”, “433 PROGRASS articles en”). It has been founded under the legal form of a registered association related to German law (PROGRASS e.V.) in April 2011. The registration before the regional court in charge in Eschwege (Witzenhausen, Germany) followed in June 2011 (annex “434 PROGRASS registration document”). In this way a flexible, less bureaucratic and charitable institution has been established. All PROGRASS project partners as well as other institutions and persons interested to promote the PROGRASS approach have been invited to become members (annex “435 PROGRASS admission form”). In the framework of this action intensive counselling sessions with different specialist lawyers have been carried out regarding IPR and branding issues. As result the brands PROGRASS and IFBB were protected in order to safeguard the results and the procedure of the project. Compared to the planning the envisaged results could be achieved. For the time being, in the PROGRASS project the small solution of a charitable association was appropriate. This way the network was founded in time in project month 24. A (costly) European cooperative structure may become suitable in the event of a transnational supply chain in the “after life phase”, as planned in the business concept of the joint Central Europe project and the NWE-project. A team of partners 1, 6 and 9 prepared value propositions (scenarios) as pre-stage for concrete product lines and business planning for PROGRASS. The scenarios were derived from the 8 case studies including 3 new transnational partners (BE, UK, AT). They further developed the PROGRASS approach by differentiating the input (raw materials) and output (bio-fuels) and the production processes (description of add-on and stand- alone full scaled plants. The variability at the three operational layers facilitated different investment options that have been further substantiated in joint pre-investment projects. Based on these scenarios 2 concrete project proposals were developed to prepare investments in Central and North West Europe with 18 new network partners from 13 regions and 9 European member states.

Locations of PROGRASS partners (state June 2012)


To achieve this result, which is exceeding the planned numbers of new partners by 11 and the collaborating European member states by 2, intensive networking and developing actions have been carried out by a team of partners 6, 9 and 1. It has to be highlighted that the networking and valorisation (exploitation and further development) is only successful if new partners see a concrete added value. Hence the project development workshops, as foreseen as modules on Level3 are extremely important for the sustainability of the network. The workload invested in this action was substantially higher than planned. To our mind this effort is clearly justified since it also shows the high value and impact of the LIFE+ support for those demonstration projects. As next stage the successful products on demonstration scale have to be further developed as (pre-)investments for an adapted, decentralised energy production. This visionary goal could already be achieved by a successful follow-up project in the Central Europe region. The joint PROGRASS association plays the role of a nucleolus for these European development. Associated partners (envisaged number of 37 as stated in the valorisation strategy) are being connected to the PROGRASS network through the new partners that take part in the joint pre-investment projects. Deliverables of this action:

o Annex 431 List of new partners o Annex 432 Updated valorisation strategy (incl. partners and follow-up activities)


Gannt Chart

Action 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number/name of action I II

III

IV

I II

III

IV

I II

III

IV

I II

III

IV

Work Package 1: DEMONSTRATION 1.1 Mobile demonstration and

analytical unit

Demo pilots DE DE EE UK UK DE EE DE DE DE 1.2 Standardized harvesting and

processing methods

1.3 Demonstration runs in 4 European locations

Work Package 2: Investigating and verifying the FEASIBILITY 2.1 Study on the Technical

Feasibility

2.2 Calculating/Modelling of specific fuel production

Work Package 3: Investigating and verifying the SUSTAINABILITY 3.1 Examining the socio-economic

effects

3.2 Study on Effects on NATURA habitats and atmosphere

Work Package 4: VALORISATION, Dissemination, Networking 4.1 Valorisation

4.2 Dissemination

4.3 Networking

Action 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number/name of action I II

III

IV

I II

III

IV

I II

III

IV

I II

III

IV

Work package 5: Project Management, Workshops and Conferences 5.1 Setting up financial and legal

structures (actual)

5.2 Monitoring and Evaluation (actual)

5.3.

Kick-off, workshops, Conferences (actual)

x x x x x 5.4 Reporting

Gannt Chart of PROGRASS The project could be carried out as planned. Though the delayed delivery of the prototype, caused by long tendering procedures, led to delays in connected actions (e.g. in demonstration but also in the socio-economic survey) the timeframe could be kept. Major obstacles due to these delays could be avoided, on the one hand by time buffers foreseen in the original planning and also by slight changes in the demonstration programme.


5.2 Evaluation

In this section you should evaluate the following aspects of the project − Methodology applied: discuss the success and failures of the methodology applied, results of

actions conducted and the cost-efficiency of actions

Demonstration: The major demonstration activity was the demonstration of the prototype plant in action. These repeating events were divided in three sub-activities:

1. Introduction, background information, general and theoretic instructions 2. Demonstration of the dewatering unit 3. Demonstration of the fermenter unit 4. Common discussion

Ad 1. Depending on the weather situation this part was conducted either indoor or at the plant. Detailed construction plans were provided and the parent biomass was demonstrated regarding its chemical properties and by samples taken from silage bales at the plant. Physical, chemical and energetic data were presented based on the scientific assessments during the project’s lifetime. Setting up the demonstration routine took time, as the data were not available at the beginning of the project and experience had to be gained by the partners to adapt spontaneously to the ability and knowledge of visitors in order to adapt the demonstration programme. Ad 2. Together with information flyers showing the technical process visitors usually felt well-informed, as the demonstration followed the natural process of the plant. Approximately 6-8 persons were instructed at one time. Due to limited space within the dewatering container, doors had to be left open during the demonstration. During the winter months heavy frost sometimes led to freezing water within the plant which had to melted with hot air, causing a time delay. Ad 3. The fermenter unit was built very robust causing only few disruptions due to frost and usually was well- tempered, as the working temperature of the fermenters was 38°C. Overall, demonstrations were more time-consuming as planned previously due to the extremely limited space in the containers. Thus, visitor groups had to be split up. Ad 4. Discussions were always very constructive, as the visitors were keen to learn as much as possible. Infrastructure was partly weak, as farmer’s buildings were not facilitated for larger visitor groups. Feasibility Based on experiences from previous trans-national research projects the PROGRASS partners set up a common protocol for all processes and methodologies regarding data assessment along the production chain. Due to these early efforts, partners were confronted with possible problems and drawbacks, in many cases well ahead before they occurred. This protocol was further developed and improved and served throughout the project’s lifetime as a valuable guidance. One major problem was related to the partner who ought to supply the combustion tests – the amounts of press-cake produced in the demonstration trials were simply too small for the testing boilers. Hence the tests were carried out with adapted furnaces at smaller scale in the departments of the University of Kassel. The projects benefit would have been even greater if UK‘s official environmental body would have allowed us to recycle digestates on the harvested grassland sites. This would


have provided important information about the sustainability of the vegetation productivity and on possible consequences on the species diversity. It is remarkable that other national authorities did not prohibit this, as it affected the NATURA sites only on very small areas. A further harmonization among the European countries and liberalization for the sake of an efficient research would work would be absolutely desirable. Sustainability The University of Kassel has vast experience both with the economic and the live cycle assessment of complex production systems. Due to the support of the project management the researchers had no problem with the acquisition of partner’s data and calculations were conducted as planned.

Valorisation: The project was based on an interdisciplinary cooperation of public bodies, research institutes and counselling/training agencies with long term experience in the bio-energy sector enriched by organisations specialised in networking and training. The responsibilities were shared between the partners and the results in terms of up-scaling, feasibility and sustainability and valorisation were successful in general. Germany: The new county government of the VB-region integrated a “PROGRASS plant” on the regional development agenda which is certainly a result of the project and the proximity and the collaboration of the German partners. Wales and Estonia: The results in the project regions in Wales and Estonia were also promising but due to different frame conditions and the lack of central stakeholders in the regional consortia as core partners the effect was merely a “kick-off” than a pre-investment like in Germany. However, in the follow-up project “COMBINE” which has been developed also with new Welsh partners, the PROGRASS concept will be transferred tailor-made to the Welsh and UK- conditions. Insofar the method of a joint approach of a multi-stakeholder group turned out very successful in the state of Hesse and shall be adapted and further developed in the framework of new transnational projects. Cost Efficiency As far as the cost efficiency of the valorisation work package is concerned all planned deliverables were produced in the project lifetime. The quantitative targets were met or exceeded. PROGRASS produced a set of instruments and materials that can be used and transferred to future projects. The most successful element, however, is the integration of active new partners in the PROGRASS network. This could only be achieved by intensive collaborative learning along the valorisation plan and the blended learning course. By the end of the project 2 new projects could be developed with a projected amount of 4,5 Mio Euros and 18 new partners. Insofar the PROGRASS WP4, with a rough total of approximately 620.000 € triggered more than 5 times as much potential follow up and investment volume. In an intermediate stage approximately 800 (registered) stakeholders took part in different modules of the blended learning concept, be it at the learning events at the spot or up to concrete collaborative development units.


− Compare the results achieved against the objectives: briefly assess whether the objectives

were met and describe the successes and lessons learned. This could be presented in a table, which compares through quantitative and qualitative information the actions implemented in the frame of the project with the objectives in the revised proposal.

− Task Foreseen in the revised

proposal Achieved Evaluation

Mobile demonstration and analytical unit (Action 1.1)

Mobile demonstration and analytical unit

The prototype was delivered in February of 2010.

Improvement and optimisation of the functioning of the prototype could be achieved after 3 months of start-up phase.

Continuing maintenance

Maintenance/operation was conducted by the manufacturer first and later by the team members of Kassel University.

Briefing of the partner staff allowed cost-saving operation during the two-years lasting circuit.

Double European demonstration circuit

Circuit started in February 2010 and was finished in September 2011.

There was a delay of delivery, which could be compensated by using the buffering times. Demonstration events were very much appreciated as the IFBB approach could be visited in technical detail.

Standardised harvesting and processing methods (Action 1.2)

Standardised (transferable) harvesting and processing

Methods to be applied were described in the Common Protocol.

Standardised framework on the work plan allowed the provision of consistent and transferable data.

Training course for partners (multipliers)

Working instructions were discussed and agreed on during the first transnational partner meeting. Personal was trained along the procedure supported by first e-Learning units on harvesting and conservation.

As the partner institutions in UK and EE were experienced in grassland research, no major problems occurred during the design of the work plan. Harvesting and conservation was supported by experts from Kassel University.

Procedural descriptions (flow charts, interactive web-elements)

Methods of harvest, ensiling, processing and sample treatment were clearly described in the Common Protocol.

As the Common Protocol was commonly discussed, implementation of the work plan could be efficiently done by all partners.

Demonstration runs in 3 European locations (Action 1.3)

Demonstration runs in 3 European locations

Demonstration runs were conducted according to the adapted time schedule.

Demonstration runs that consisted both of scientific sample processing as well as continuous operation for demonstration events and press cake production went very well in fruitful cooperation between the lead partner and the respective partner sites.

160 samples and analysed, 80 m3 of solid fuel produced

432 samples were analysed from the harvests in 2009 and 2010. About 100 m3 of solid fuel was produced.

Number of sample exceeded the original plan as two years experiments were conducted. Most of


Task Foreseen in the revised proposal

Achieved Evaluation

the solid fuel was produced by daily operation of the plant during the stay in Germany in 2011.

Study on the Technical Feasibility (Action 2.1)

Assessment and evaluation methodology for the technical part

Processing of the prototype was described in the Common Protocol.

Standardised biomass treatment at all sites ensured reliable interpretations on different raw materials.

Study on the Technical Feasibility (systems engineering)

The study on technical feasibility was carried comprising all process steps of the IFBB system.

Lessons learned led to important knowledge building with regard to future implementation of full scaled IFBB plants.

Calculating/Modelling of specific fuel production (Action 2.2)

Calculation of performance parameters for different raw materials

Calculation was based on 54 test plot, thus allowed statements for different raw materials.

Processing of 108 small scale samples (2 years) was a time consuming experiment, but ensured the provision of a scientifically reliable data base.

Evaluation reports, 40 pages each on site specific fuel production - nutrient and energy flows

Reports were finished in 2012 after all analysis were completed.

The aim of the evaluation reports was to give information in a scientific sense with detailed descriptions of the methods applied, but also summarise in a few words the main conclusions.

Examining the socio-economic effects of PROGRASS (Action 3.1)

Evaluation framework on socio-economic effects

An evaluation framework was established

The evaluation framework based on surveys and regional analyses helped to successfully establish a standard evaluation procedure which can be used for acting recommendations

Pre-Study about the economy of NATURA grassland habitats

The Pre-Study about the economy of NATURA grassland habitats was carried out for each of the partner regions´ framework conditions

The Pre-Study was the foundation for a realistic economic assessment of an up-scaled IFBB plant for all three regions regarding grassland management and substrate production costs

Evaluation reports on socio-economic effects for regional agriculture and development aspects

Extensive Evaluation reports for all three partner regions were created

Based on a thorough regional analysis, the PROGRASS plant investment calculations were the foundation for the identification of multiple socio-economic effects as described in the evaluation reports

Acting recommendations for stakeholders

Socio-economic acting recommendations were established in all three partner languages

The acting recommendations summarize all findings of the socio-economic



Achieved Evaluation

PROGRASS research regarding a successful regional PROGRASS implementation and can serve as a useful decision support tool for various stakeholder groups

Monitoring the effects on NATURA grassland habitats (Action 3.2)

Assessment and evaluation methodology for the nature part

Standardised working plan for botanical inventory was included in the Common Protocol.

Methodical agreement ensured consistent data in terms of the timing, however, size of the test plots was varied by the UK partners.

European pre-study The pre-study was created at an early stage of the project.

The pre-study contained valuable information on habitat types chosen for PROGRASS and was the basis for several dissemination materials at the beginning of the project.

Study on botanical composition and diversity criteria

The study was completed after the final botanical inventory in 2011 based on data from all partner sites.

Assessment at the beginning and at the end of the project allowed first results of biodiversity dynamics, but would require long-term analysis for reliable statements.

Reports on nutrient and energy balances, comparison of results with national lists of special targeted species and habitats and assessment of CO2 substitution potential

Reports were finished in 2012 after all analysis were completed.

The aim of the evaluation reports was to give information in a scientific sense with detailed descriptions of the methods applied, but also summaries of the main conclusions.

Valorisation (Action 4.1)

Valorisation strategy The strategy was developed in time and constantly substantiated. Consisting of 22 pages

The training and collaborative development processes were developed along the strategy. It contains strategy, network concept, marketing approach, value proposition and IPR issues.

Consulting a minimum of 20 farmers per location

The number of consulted farmers was exceeded in the project lifetime

Learning materials for a 40 hrs certification course for European farmers

Learning materials for farmers were made available in the first project phase in order to train personnel. However the focus on harvesting and conservation limited the target group too much.

Based on the first experiences the target group and the contents were extended. Course modules were offered to regional stakeholders and also to new interested transnational project partners (interface to action 4.2 and 4.3)

8 Case studies: descriptions and experience reports on local projects

8 case studies were established Case studies were appropriate means to identify the potentials of different regional



Achieved Evaluation

approaches. They opened up new perspectives in terms of input materials

3 new micro-studies in new EU-member states

7 Regional micro studies were carried out

Micro studies have been becoming important components of the regional development concepts

5 new interested partner candidates

18 partner candidates already collaborated Based on the 3rd level of the

blended learning course concept more partners could be integrated.

In order to safe travel time and resources these sessions were carried out centrally in 2 workshops with the envisaged 10 partner regions (CZ, SL, AT, UK, FR, IT, BE (2), SK, DE).

Additional visits to other regions (AT (Waldviertel, Vienna), FR (Lille) and DE (Baden Baden) were carried out to attract new partners.

3 new micro-studies in new EU-member states

7 Regional micro studies were developed

Micro studies have been becoming important components of the regional development concepts

Planning and demonstration phase with demo-plant and workshops for regional stakeholders

Fully achieved; integrated as Level1 and 2 in the blended learning concept;

Dissemination (Action 4.2)

Dynamic, multilingual web-portal

Portal, incl. LMS, CMS, internal project space and online conferences

Interactive services were set up as planned. Internal and external communication worked according to plan. Online meetings contributed to limit travel expenses

Website content, consultation and learning offers

400 sub-pages, three languages were created

Website was hit 240.000 times/year and visited 2.000 times/month Content management was centralised

Blended learning training courses for stakeholders, 16 hrs face to face, 16 hrs eLearning

Course with 10 units was developed; It was offered to different stakeholders, regional and/or transnational groups. Approximately 800 persons took part in different modules.

Blended learning training was modularised to meet the demands and the resources of potential partners and to make the participatory learning concept the central element of the three stage valorisation strategy.

Web-based Simulation Calculation programme to The simulation was



Achieved Evaluation

software calculate the feasibility of a region was included in the Blended Learning course.

integrated in one course unit in order to induce the participation in Level2/3. An English version is appropriate since new PROGRASS partners have to communicate in EN.

Dissemination database with 3.000 addresses

Database with 3.069 entries The database facilitated successful mass mailings

Various publications 55 press articles 15 scientific articles and 7 scientific posters as well as 1 roll-up published during project life-time

Regular newsletters 6 newsletters developed and distributed according to the plan

PROGRASS Binder The binder was produced consisting of the extended PROGRASS brochure and the envisaged content parts, summing up to a total of 150 pages

The binder is generally well received and can be compiled in a tailor-made way. The extended brochure was translated in 6 languages according to the agreement of the meeting with the LIFE unit in April 2012.

Networking (Action 4.3)

Memorandum; statement of partnership

Developed in time

Legal structure of PROGRASS-Network; contracts for new partners; Fully fledged PROGRASS-Network with legal structure and business plan

Legal structure was developed in time incl. all necessary documents. Valorisation strategy (411) contains all necessary planning, marketing and value proposition (business/project planning documents). It was substantiated over the project lifetime and serves as central future planning instrument.

The PROGRASS e.V. is the appropriate legal form for the start-up phase. Collaborating partners received accession documents. Follow up business concepts were developed in form of 2 fully fledged project proposals.

5 new partners or partner projects on the transnational level and inter-sectoral enlargement (associated partners)

18 new partners were included from 13 new regions with a minimum of >40 associated partners (different relevant stakeholder groups).

Achieved by intensive networking and concrete collaborative workshops on Level 3.

Effective communication culture and online system

Online communication system developed in time

The system worked successfully over the project lifetime, it was also used in the framework of the Level3 workshops.


5.3 Analysis of long-term benefits

In this section please discuss the following:

1. Environmental benefits a. Direct / quantitative environmental benefits:

i. LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance: e.g. reductions of emissions, energy or resource savings

Beside the positive effects of regular grassland use on biodiversity conservation of NATURA sites, fuel production from this biomass would represent a remarkable contribution in the supply of renewable energy. The IFBB technique applied in PROGRASS is a flexible system in terms of grassland type and biomass supply and, thus, applicable on all accessible grasslands in Europe. Low energy input, high conversion efficiency of the IFBB system and the possibility of co-firing of grassland pellets in existing heating plants provide the opportunity for substantial savings of greenhouse gases and fossil energy carriers in the proximate future.

b. Relevance for environmentally significant issues or policy areas (e.g. industries/sectors with significant environmental impact, consistency with 6EAP or important environmental principles, relevance to the EU legislative framework (directives, policy development, etc.)

The project contributes to the Lisbon agenda since it relates to an innovative procedure to produce new bio-fuels and utilise bio-energy production more efficiently hence to strengthen the competitiveness of bio-energy producers and consumers. It supports the development of both public and private investments in large scale investments and production units run by public and private co-operations (e.g. production and supply co-operatives and associations as transnational clusters).

The project addresses several issues related to the Gothenburg goals: It relates to:

• environmental sustainability because it invents an eco-friendly technology to increase the efficiency of bio-energy production, contributes to a protection of protected species-rich grasslands and uses biomasses that are not used for bio-energy production before and which are even facing abandonment

• By an increase of efficiency and the better utilisation of waste energy the project also contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gases

• The project positively influences biodiversity in NATURA areas (by fostering nature friendly and nature conserving harvesting techniques) by conserving extensively used grasslands in floodplains as retention areas

• With the production of an additional storable bio-fuel and the further increase of efficiency of bio-energy and (in future also) water cleaning technologies the project promotes a cleaner production and consumption.

2. Long-term sustainability a. Long-term / qualitative environmental benefits

i. LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance: e.g. long term sustainable technology, from product to functional focus, from end-of-pipe to prevention; high visibility for environmental problems and/or solutions; spin-off effect in other environmental areas etc.


The PROGRASS approach will contribute to explore and utilise new biomasses and convert them into storable bio-fuels especially in smaller and marginalised regions. By this, PROGRASS will work in a “niche” of bio-energy production which is neither competitor for food nor dependent on large quantities of input materials. PROGRASS is promoting a sustainable production and consumption with special attention to regional value added chains: Pure IFBB fuels are similar in quality as woodchips and can be used along various combustion strategies, e.g. as a pure fuel in larger woodchip furnaces (>100 kW) or after blending with high-quality wood in smaller pellet ovens (<100 kW). Comprehensive feasibility studies, addressing all technical, ecological and socio-economic aspects of the innovation have set a sound scientific basis for region-specific investment schedules. Facilitation of eco-efficient production and consumption processes: The operation of an IFBB plant in conjunction with existing biogas or waste water treatment plants would add a year-round heat sink due to the implementation of a drying process which renders the solid components of the raw material into a storable solid fuel.

Results from PROGRASS research showed that the conversion efficiency of energy contained in landscape management material into utilisable energy (electricity and heat) was 25% in biogas plants and 53% in the IFBB process. Finally the IFBB technology is also capable to tackle problems of suppressing invasive plant species which jeopardize species richness in case of abandonment, e.g. bracken in the UK.

b. Long-term / qualitative economic benefits (e.g. long-term cost savings and/or business opportunities with new technology etc., regional development, cost reductions or revenues in other sectors)

In the economic research part of PROGRASS different business scenarios were developed including all relevant factors influencing the profitability of a potential full scale plant. Based on the micro studies carried out business opportunities related to the IFBB/PROGRASS approach are possible. Hence, already in the project lifetime 2 follow up projects were outlined aiming at investments of more than 4.5 Mio €. to exploit unused biomass sources for bio-fuel purposes. As add-on component to existing biogas or AD-plants the excessive heat will be utilised to dry the press cake and thus leading to a higher efficiency of the combined plant. By an increase of efficiency and the better utilisation of waste energy it also contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gases.

c. Long-term / qualitative social benefits (e.g. positive effects on employment, health, ethnic integration, equality and other socio-economic impact etc.)

PROGRASS is targeting towards the creation of new and sustainable income-generating options for farmers and enterprises in the waste management sector in rural and disadvantaged regions. Furthermore, the PROGRASS network already at present stage collaborates with a Belgium organisation (PRO Natura) which combines nature protection activities with social offers (employment) for socially disadvantaged persons. In connection with new projected plants employment (~5 persons per plant) can be expected.

3. Replicability, demonstration, transferability, cooperation: Transferability & potential

for commercialisation, including cost-effectiveness compared to other solutions, benefits for stakeholders, drivers and obstacles for transfer, if relevant: market conditions, pressure from the public, potential degree of geographical dispersion,


specific target group information, high project visibility (eye-catchers), possibility in same and other sectors on local and EU level, etc.

The transfer activities already started in the last project phase. On base of the successful and promising technical, socio-economic and ecological results a sound marketing and transfer concept has been implemented. The three-level valorisation and capacity building approach plays a central role here. The mobile demonstration approach combined with the produced online materials and standardised trainings needs only few adaptations and translations of central materials in order to prepare new regions to plan and prepare investments in the PROGRASS approach. The regional investments are especially an advantage for those regions that look for smaller decentralised solutions to produce bio-fuels. As add-on units the IFBB plant will lead to a higher efficiency of biogas and sewage water plants. Against the current discussion about bio-energy vs. food production the PROGRASS approach to generate bio-fuel from protected grasslands and the follow-up projects focusing on roadside verges and riparian river areas are extremely interesting new options for bio-fuel production. Whilst IFBB is the label for the technology PROGRASS is the brand for the regional development approach. Through the funding and the consequent application of its corporate design PROGRASS has become a well known brand standing for quality and sound technological, economical and ecological analysis. With its three-stage participatory learning and joint development concept PROGRASS has been developed to become a replicable and transferable regional development programme to trigger investments in decentralised bio-fuel production. This is why expert organisations from the field (e.g. the energy agencies from AT, IT, FR, CZ and the UK) are eager to collaborate with PROGRASS.

4. Innovation and demonstration value: Describe the level of innovation,

demonstration value added by EU funding at national and international level (including technology, processes, methods & tools, organisational & co-operational aspects);

In comparison to large scale biomass production and end of pipe technological solutions, the PROGRASS/IFBB approach is more sustainable, more eco-friendly, more climate friendly (less transport costs) and last but not least more affordable. This makes it attractive especially for European regions that are located in less developed, peripheral areas. Based on the findings from the project the PROGRASS network will in future also focus on European supply chains since market conditions and legal frame conditions differ largely from member state to member state, thus opening also transnational options for production and supply chains beyond country level. The transnational, European approach is vital for PROGRASS, thus the network will not only work on regional (like in the Vogelsberg) but especially on interregional projects. European funding bodies explicitly appreciated the development of the PROGRASS approach from laboratory to demonstration scale as a sound basis to prepare investments in Central Europe. These positive developments, that will possibly lead to large scale investments in the next phase were only possible through the LIFE+ funding because no other European or national finance instrument supported the necessary (intermediate) demonstration and up-scaling phase.


5. Long term indicators of the project success: describe the quantifiable indicators to be used in future assessments of the project success, e.g. the conservation status of the habitats / species.

Indicators in regard to networking: Number of PROGRASS partners Number of associated partners Number of stakeholders participating in PROGRASS learning modules Number of regional investigations carried out using the PROGRASS approach (micro-studies) Number of regional feasibility studies carried out Number of pre-investment projects carried out Economic and energy relevant indicators Number and amounts of investments triggered Amount of public funding acquired Amounts of bio-fuel produced Amount of staff posts created Indicators of ecological impact Increase of diversity of well managed plots Number of red species increased Amount of GHG reduced


5.4 Dissemination issues

Recall the objectives of the dissemination plan set out in the revised project proposal (summary). In PROGRASS a whole work-package dealt with valorisation and the results and evaluation of dissemination activities was extensively described in 5.1.4. The relevant dissemination deliverables can be retrieved in annex folders 4.2

5.4.2 Layman's report

The layman’s report are annexed in folder 426 (PROGRASS binder), subfolder 4260, including the project partners’ language versions (EN, EE, DE) and translations in CZ, SL and IT.

5.4.3 After-LIFE Communication plan

LIFE+ Biodiversity and LIFE Environment Policy and Governance (1-2 pages)

This compulsory plan should be presented in electronic and in paper form. It shall set out how the beneficiary and partners plan to continue applying, disseminating and communicating the results of the project after the end of the project, and in particular how they plan both to continue applying the results themselves and to facilitate / encourage / ensure their wider application by others; it shall be delivered in English and (optionally) in the language of the beneficiary.

The PROGRASS project funded between 2009 and 2012 reflects an intermediate stage of an interdisciplinary and holistic approach for the development of a decentralised bio-energy production. At the same time, and as a philosophy of the approach, PROGRASS stands for fostering diversity on extensively used sites through a sound management, harvesting and conservation system of these areas both for the sake of the nature and the citizens living in this environment. Already during the project lifetime intensive valorisation and networking activities were carried out to prepare the sustainability after the funding period. For this purpose a valorisation strategy was drafted in the first project months and substantiated in the project lifetime. At the end of the funding period not only a plan for the future of PROGRASS but concrete follow-up projects have been developed together with new network partners. Hence the PROGRASS “after LIFE communication plan” is fixed in the valorisation strategy, which contains:

1. Valorisation plan (Level1 to 3) 2. Description of the PROGRASS network (mission statement) 3. Organisational development strategy 4. Marketing plan

a. General marketing approach b. Inventory of marketing materials

5. Value proposition/ Follow up business project planning 6. IPR and confidentiality issues in the PROGRASS network

The main instruments of the “after LIFE development plan” are the standardised valorisation plan (point 1) in which the 3-stage development and collaborative learning approach is described and the corresponding marketing activities (4).


In future PROGRASS will make use of those activities, instruments and materials that proved successful in the course of the LIFE+ demonstration project. Hence the demonstration events combined with the blended learning course and regional/transnational development workshops will be central elements of the “after LIFE planning”. Concretely, the following activities are being planned:

1. Demonstration and collaborative learning units • will be carried out in Witzenhausen in Autumn/Winter 2012/13 • will be carried out in at least 6 new European member states together with capacity

building activities in 2013 and 2014. 2. Regional project developments

Example: Future developments in the Vogelsberg region • Pre-investment phase: A further feasibility study relating to a full-scaled plant will

be established as investments to explore stand-alone or add-on solutions at the location. Additionally co-funding possibilities of the Environmental Ministry will be explored

• A regional energy cooperative will collect funds for investment and setting up the IFBB plant.

• Similar procedures will be applied in other regions that decide to go for the PROGRASS approach, of course modified and adapted to the regional frame conditions.

3. Interregional, transnational project developments As highlighted above PROGRASS has a strong transnational component. Therefore new projects have been and will be developed in future to prepare investments and to disseminate the concept, technology to other international regions. For this purpose the PROGRASS network will on the one hand continue to release information and publications on the latest developments, be it new projects (DANUBENERGY), new findings (scientific publications) or new practical experiences made for instance at those locations that are about to implement the technology (Vogelsberg region or Baden-Baden). Newsletters will report about these developments to keep the large “community” informed. At all new partner locations intensive dissemination activities will attract regional stakeholders, new interested regions will be invited to visit the future PROGRASS project regions. Regional partners will invite press and media to report about the approach and the joint development actions.

Gantt-Chart of the communication and development actions in the “After-LIFE phase”

3 Q 2012 4 Q 2012 1 Q 2013 2 Q 2013 3 Q 2013 4 Q 2013 1 Q 2014 2 Q 2014 3 Q 2014 4 Q 2014Dissemination actions

Translation of materialsPress releases

Demo/Workshop-invitationsConstant reporting on PROGRASS

Demonstration and learningLevel1

WiZ,conference

DemonstrationCE partners

Collaborative regional learning

Capacity building (Level2/3)

PreparationsWorkshops

Partner workshops (bi-/multilateral) x x x x x x x

Workshops and Events (LEVEL1) in 4-5 regions per year


6. Comments on the financial report

NB the standard statement of expenditure attached to the grant agreement must be used and presented in a separate documents cf. the format for financial reporting. This part of the technical report must include the following points: overview of cost incurred, information about the accounting system and relevant issues from the partnership agreements. This chapter should include sufficient detail to establish a clear link between technical activities on the one hand and costs declared in the financial forms on the other. Please note that – as set out in the common provisions on the eligibility of costs – only costs that are necessary for and clearly linked to the activities carried out, are eligible. This chapter should justify and explain extraordinary cases, e.g. persons changing status during the project from external consultants to employed staff.

6.1. Costs incurred

− Fill in the following table concerning the incurred project costs and comment on each of the cost categories focussing particularly discrepancies compared to the allowed flexibility of 30.000€ and 10% (cf. Article XXX in the common provisions)

PROJECT COSTS INCURRED

Cost category Total cost according to the Commission's decision*

Costs incurred from the start date to 30/06/2012

%**

1. Personnel 2.352.079 2.520.743,66 7,17%

2. Travel 92.490 88.992,29 -3,78%

3. Outside assistance 183.905 100.606,00 -45,29%

4. Durables: total non-depreciated cost

262.495 274.678,95 4,64%

- Infrastructure sub-tot.

- Equipment sub-tot.

- Prototypes sub-tot.

5. Consumables 60.000 52.023,97 -13,29%

6. Other costs 70.000 64.896,65 -7,29%

7. Overheads 210.000 174.559,33 -16,88%

SUM TOTAL 3.230.969 3.276.500,85 1,41%

*) If the Commission has officially approved a budget modification indicate the breakdown of the revised budget **) Calculate the percentages by budget lines: How many % of the budgeted personnel costs are incurred by dd/mm/yyyy

6.2. Accounting system

− Please indicate what type of timesheets you make use of The timesheets used based on the LIFE+model timesheets. All partners had to use the same model. They were checked and accepted during the LIFE+ unit meeting in 04/2012.

− How are invoices marked in order to show the link to the LIFE+ project? All invoices were stamped with the name PROGRASS, the LIFE+ hint and the project number.


6.3. Partnership arrangements (if relevant)

Please briefly explain how financial transactions between the beneficiary and the partners take place. How is financial reporting implemented (do partners themselves enter the information or is this done by the beneficiary?) Financial transactions were channelled through the project office and reported to the LIFE+ Unit and the monitoring team. Disbursements were made on payment requests. Financial state of each partner and financial documentation was regularly checked and discussed during the project meetings. Financial reports were first counterchecked by the project office compiled and presented (in case of the LIFE+ visit) and forwarded to the external auditor and eventually compiled in the final financial report.

6.4. Auditor's report/declaration

If required (NB recall the rules on when it is required) NB: Compulsory use of the standard audit report form available on the LIFE website The auditor’s report is attached to the final report.


7. Annexes

Please make a reference to the annexes in the report text. In case the annexes are presented in local languages, a summary (titles, headings, map keys, etc) in English should be included, either in the report text or in the annexes. Annexes should be given in paper form and in electronic form. − The electronic version must be complete and include all annexes. − The paper version may make a reference to the submission of the annex e.g. that partnership

agreements were submitted with the inception report submitted on (date). 7.1 Administrative annexes

− At the stage of the final report all Partnership agreements (if relevant) should have already been submitted to the Commission. Therefore an overview indicating with which report they were already forwarded to the Commission is sufficient.

Partnership agreements were annexed in the mid-term report

7.2 Technical annexes

− List of keywords and abbreviations used Included in the reports

− Technical reports, e.g. hydrological studies Attached in the respective folders List of (technical) deliverables annexed to the final report

Action Deliverable1 Name Remarks

Action 1 1.1 Continuing maintenance

No 11: Continuing Maintenance along the manual of the mobile demonstration unit

1.3: Demonstration runs in 3 EU countries

Described in the project report, Participant lists annexed in WP4

1.3: 160 samples analysed, 80 m3 of solid fuel produced

Samples led to the deliverables in WP2, deliverable 21

432 samples were analysed from the harvests in 2009 and 2010. About 100 m3 of solid fuel was produced.

Action 2 2.1 Study on the technical feasibility

No 21 Feasibility study

2.2 Evaluation reports

Folder No 22 containing 5 evaluation reports (221-225) Annex_221_Evaluation report on energy efficiency Annex_222_Evaluation report on nutrient budgets Annex_223_Evaluation report on solid fuel characteristics Annex_224_Report on small scale combustion tests Annex_225_Report on large scale combustion tests

Action 3 3.1 Evaluation reports on socio-

Folder No 31 containing 6 files Reports 311-316

1 As stated and listed in the correspondence of the Commission from - 15.05)


Action Deliverable1 Name Remarks

economic effects for regional agriculture and development aspects

3.2 Study on botanical composition

Contained in Annex_323_ Study on botanical composition and diversity criteria including a comparison of results with national lists of special targeted species and habitats

3.2 Report on a) nutrients, b) list on targeted species, c) Assessment on CO2 substitution

Folder 31 containing 3 files Reports: a) Annex_322_Evaluation report on nutrient balances b) Annex_323_ Study on botanical composition and diversity criteria including a comparison of results with national lists of special targeted species and habitats c) Annex_324_Evaluation report on CO2 substitution potential and life cycle assessment

Action 4 Results and Evaluation from 20 farmers per region

412 Evaluation report on the PROGRASS information and consulting events

8 case studies Folder 413 containing 2 files 4131 = Questionnaire 4132 = Case Studies

3 micro studies Annex 414 report on the 6 micro studies

Dissemination database

4241_PROGRASS_dissemination_database

Available as electronic version on CD

Various publications

4251-4254 diverse publications In the folder dissemination deliverables, folder 425

5 new partners 431 Partner list 432 Updated valorisation strategy 18 new partners are included from 13 new regions

7.3 Dissemination annexes In electronic format (On one or more CD-ROMs or DVD appropriately labelled and indexed):

− All the photographs produced during the project (in high quality, high resolution JPEG/TIFF format or better)

− All dissemination related products (brochures, scientific articles, guidelines, books, posters, newsletters, …) in PDF format;

− Video (if relevant) − Project Website pages − Standard presentation illustrating the main actions and results of the project (set of slides /

colour photographs, electronic images with captions) In paper format: Any document, map or publication which is an identifiable product of the project or which is useful to assess the success of the project.

− Dissemination / publication list or examples − Articles, − Books, Brochures

In both electronic and paper format: − Layman's report (compulsory) cf. point 5.4.2.


List of annexes dissemination deliverables

Action Deliverable Name/location Remarks

List of Dissemination deliverables 4.2 Dissemination

deliverables Folder 421 containing 12 files Blended learning course planning documents

4.2 Dissemination deliverables

Folder 422 learning materials containing 75 files; learning materials


Folder 423 participants containing 22 files; participant lists


Folder 424 dissemination database containing 1 file


Folder 425 publications containing 4 subfolders - press releases (54 files) - newsletters/posters (13 files) - print materials (7 files, flyers etc.) - scientific publications (15 files)


Folder 426 PROGRASS binder containing 4 subfolders with 49 files - laymen reports, 6 languages (6 files) - technical approach - biomass - products - energy balance - plant economics - socio-economics - procedure - PROGRASS network/association

In print compiled in a separate folder


Folder 427 films containing 5 TV-films

Only electronic versions on the CD


Website: www.prograss.eu Web-link

7.4 Financial annexes

− Types of timesheets used Already sent to the Commission

− Relevant supporting documents − Auditors report using the standard reporting format (compulsory for many projects)

Attached to the financial report 7.5 Final indicators tables - Please see the Guidelines for the compilation of final outcome indicators tables Annexed in a different file Financial report

− Statement of expenditure and income: must be signed − External auditor's report using standard format − Beneficiary's certificate − Project consolidated statement of expenditure − Project statement of income (finance plan) − Participant statement of expenditure (to be completed by each partner and by the beneficiary) − Form 1: Personnel costs − Form 2: Travel costs − Form 3: External assistance − Form 4: Infrastructure − Form 4.2: Equipment


− Form 4.3: Prototype − Form 5: − Form 6: Consumerable material − Form 7: Other costs − Form 8: Overheads − Form 8: Overheads part II ? − Justification for overspending of 10%/30.000€? Do we need this since we just cut?

project's final technical report

Documents