• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6


 Name of the Deliverable Code of the associated action Summary
 1. Organisation chart/ Description of roles  1  The organogram  and the Project’s Management Board is presented via hyperlink “organogram” selected.
 2. List of background information to be used for IAP  2  The scope of the IAP Method was systematically studied and the framework for the environmental impact assessment and ranking was established. In order to accommodate the interactions between aspects (farmers’ activities), their environmental impacts and the compartments on which the impacts are exercised, the concept of ‘triplets’ - the basic structure comprised of these three elements-was introduced as described in the Technical Annex of the project. Forty three (43) triplets were suggested by the WG, after a screening procedure. Also, the concept of ‘parameters’ was defined as the factors, which influence the significance of the impact for each triplet and was elaborated against defined criteria. Parameters were also given a relative weight in each triplet. The specific Aspects, Impacts, Compartments and Parameters for IAP development were assigned for the olive groves of the project, by revision of the older version of parameters list submitted by RodaxAgro. This action was completed successfully.
 3. First draft of Impact Assessment Procedure (SOP)  3.2  The IAP Method  was developed to assess the environmental profile of individual olive groves. This was achieved on the basis of values of its specific parameters which were sourced from the software SAGEProject and a system of EXCEL files called IAP Toolbox. Data collection related to parameter values/classes, was assigned to five agronomists (trained by experts of the Beneficiaries). The efficiency of training was assessed through a ‘calibration’ procedure which was carried out in 2012 and 2013. The parameter values/classes were automatically allocated to respective triplets by the software SAGEProject and the calculations of the triplets scores were performed by the specifically developed algorithms implemented in the IAP Toolbox. The triples were further ranked on the basis of their scores (significance).
4. Registries of participating farmers and parcels  3.5  The Registries of participating farmers and parcels of the three areas have been completed by the end of 2011 and remained the same after the initial changes made during the first year (2011). Specifically, during the first year of implementation were selected 600 plots (200 per producer group) and in the first year 44 plots out of 600 had to be replaced: 1) in the group of Nileas: 6 parcels were replaced without replacing the producers, 2) in the group of Peza: 31 parcels were replaced belonging to seven producers. The 31 parcels were replaced with 31 parcels of new producers who enrolled in the program, 3) in the group of Mirabello: seven parcels owned by one producer. These plots were replaced by seven parcels of a new producer who joined the program. These changes have been made for various reasons, mainly of social ones such as inheritance, sale, dowry deaths, disagreements with management of the group, etc., and were unavoidable. However due to the limited amount (7%) of changes, they were not assessed as significant and the parcels replaced directly or by internal replacement of producers (relevant provision in the Technical Report (page 11/44). This process was completed and has not changed since the end of 2011. Changes were made before the soil samples taken at the end of 2011. After the aforementioned changes and until the end of the program no further changes were made.
5. GIS maps with parcels 3.5 The positions of the parcels were recorded with GIS and the relevant maps presenting the three pilot areas were produced.  Also all beneficiaries produced maps with the field measurements and results.
6. Overall Environmental Profile for each of the 3 sites 4.2  The primary data collection system in the pilot areas, which was indispensable to the purposes of the project, was based both on the use of EMS–ΙΑΡ (Environmental Management System), and also on the project’s database (SAGEProject). However, in contrast to the original Method of RodaxAgro which was based only on data collected at field level, the final version of IAP Method needed a large number of auxiliary data from sources other than the field itself, such as soil-water analysis, weather, chemical and toxicological data etc. Auxiliary data were either collected as primary values or they were obtained after processing of primary data. Data from the following different sources, i.e. SAGEProject database as well Libraries with auxiliary data all ended up constructing EMS-IAP i.e the core of IAP Method where they undergo several transformations. Collection of data in the field was implemented by means of field surveys, farmers’ records, interviews with farmers, etc. Field data were updated in the SAGEProject and EMS. The EMS files were submitted on a monthly basis by the local agronomists to the Beneficiary RodaxAgro. Auxiliary data were collected or produced by scientists of the Beneficiaries LRI and BPI in collaboration with external experts. These data do not need to be altered on annual intervals therefore they should suffice the implementation of the method in the years to come. However, a review would be useful in intervals of ca 5-10 years to ensure that up-to-date data are always used. The environmental profiles of all 600 parcels have been produced for 2011, 2012 and 2013.
7. Folder with all the Good Practices issued   5 Instructions on good agricultural practices were issued on a number of different aspects such as crop protection-control means of insects and weeds, chemicals (e.g. pesticides) handling and storage, pruning, soil and water management, irrigation and fertilisation and on preservation of biodiversity. The instructions were communicated to farmers either directly or through agronomists after specific training by the Beneficiaries. Parameter-specific instructions for all 600 parcels were issued in response to the triplets which received high scores after assessments with the use of IAP Method. All general and a sample of specific guidelines were delivered. The action was successfully completed.
 8. Measurements results report  6.3       Monitoring of progress towards sustainability was performed in multiple ways such as field visits carried out by the agronomists, site visits conducted by the Beneficiaries and sampling. The sampling of harmful and beneficial arthropods, weeds, soil and water was a continuous action, which was mainly conducted by the agronomists of the three areas. The laboratory analyses of soil and water for the determination of the physico-chemical parameters were carried out in parallel to those related to pesticides and relevant metabolite residues. In addition, measurements of the biodiversity status in terms of diversity and abundance of birds, lizards, weeds, etc. were performed by the agronomists and Beneficiaries of the project. The baseline situation was determined during the first cultural period and results of measurements/observations obtained were further utilised for comparisons with those obtained later on, at the course of the project. General site and parcel specific results are archived and delivered. The Beneficiaries used the outcome of the analyses, the surveys and the monitoring records to issue general instructions and also assess parameters utilised by the IAP Method. At the end of each cultural period these data sets were used for the validation of its outcomes. Results are submitted and the action was successfully completed.
 9. Validation results report  7  The validation of the IAP was performed by external experts with a use of a questionnaire uploaded in the Project’s website (general phase), with the SAGE10 indicators and by analyzing the change in triplet scores in different parcels and areas over time (specific phase). It first started at the beginning of 2013 aimed at evaluating the results of the environmental profiles of that year by correlating them with laboratory analyses results, survey and monitoring data. This validation procedure continued until the adoption of the latest environmental profiles. The IAP Method was also validated in individual parcels (case studies) where Beneficiaries had performed in-field measurements. The IAP Method validation report is submitted and the action has been completed successfully.
 10. Impact Assessment Procedure, version 1  8 IAP Method was standardized as a guideline recommendation of EMAS at field level and was submitted to EMAS Committee of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change.
 11. Report on dissemination activities  9  Several actions regarding the dissemination of the project’s aims and objectives had been carried out. These included the development of the project website, the construction of a recognizable logo, the placement of large and smaller panels at various sites in the pilot regions, the construction of a project banner, the creation of videos, articles in national press and science journals, oral and poster presentations in national and international conferences and the development of Layman’s Report. SAGE10 was extensively presented in the 20th anniversary LIFE+ event ‘New LIFE in AgroEnvironment’. The project was presented by BPI Director in official events such as the Special Permanent Committee on Environmental Protection of the Hellenic Parliament, to the President of Greek Democracy and to the Ministers of Agriculture of China and Israel. The project was also presented to Members of the Academy of Science of China. In addition, SAGE10 was presented to the Contact Points of FP7 and the partners of BIOCIRCLE 2. SAGE10 hosted the meeting on innovative initiatives for soil conservation in the European Union in the frame of the SOIL PLATFORM MEETING. Two Workshops entitled: SAGE10: The Project to evaluate the footprint of olive culture in the environment" were held in Peloponnese and Crete.The action was successfully completed and all relevant documents were delivered.
12. Project monitoring Report  10  The external Assessment of work progress in the frame of SAGE10 was being conducted by Dr G. Garofalakis every three months for the time interval between September 2012 and June 2014. The assessment was based on a) the consortium-reported performance as expressed through input from the project Beneficiaries and b) meetings of Dr Garofalakis in BPI with the project coordinator and scientific secretary. The financial external Audit was performed by Moore Stephens International Limited in two phases and was completed without any issues raised. The Reports of work progress and financial audits were delivered and the action was successfully completed.



2 3 4 1 1

Thursday the 21st - Sage © 2011