D100.1\Treview of the Literature and Future Internet Research

Deliverable D100.1 Review of the Literature and Future Internet Research

WP 100

Project acronym & number: SmartAgriFood – 285 326 Smart Food and Agribusiness: Future Internet for Safe and Project title: Healthy Food from Farm to Fork Funding scheme: Collaborative Project - Large-scale Integrated Project (IP)

Date of latest version of Annex I: 31.03.2011

Start date of the project: 01.04.2011

Duration: 24

Status: Final

Lead beneficiary: CENTMA

ASI; AST; ATB; Atos Origin; CBHU; EHI; GS1; HWDU; JD; Contributing beneficiaries*: KTBL; LEI-WUR; MTT; NKUA; SGS; TNO; UPM

Authors*: Lehmann, R., Reiche R., Schiefer, G.

Due date of deliverable: 30.09.2011

Date: 30.09.2011

Dissemination Level

PU Public

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

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

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

* in alphabetical order

1 SmartAgriFood

The SmartAgriFood Project The SmartAgriFood project is funded in the scope of the Future Internet Public Private Partner- ship Programme (FI-PPP), as part of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission. The key objective is to elaborate requirements that shall be fulfilled by a “Future Internet” to drastically improve the production and delivery of safe & healthy food.

Project Summary SmartAgriFood aims to boost application & use of Future Internet ICTs in agri‐food sector by:  Identifying and describing technical, functional and non‐functional Future Internet specifications for experimentation in smart agri‐food production as a whole system and in particular for smart farming, smart agri‐logistics & smart food awareness,  Identifying and developing smart agri‐ food‐specific capabilities and concep‐ tual prototypes, demonstrating critical technological solutions including the feasibility to further develop them in large scale experimentation and vali‐ dation,  Identifying and describing existing experimentation structures and start user community building, resulting in an implementation plan for the next phase in the framework of the FI PPP programme.

Project Consortium  LEI Wageningen UR; Netherlands  BRI Magyarország, Hungary  ATB Bremen; Germany  Aston University; United Kingdom  TNO; Netherlands  VTT; Finland  CentMa GmbH; Germany  OPEKEPE; Greece  ATOS ORIGIN; Spain  John Deere; Germany  ASI S.L.; Spain  Wageningen University; Netherlands  Huawei; Germany  EHI Retail Institute GmbH; Germany  MTT Agrifood Research; Finland  GS1 Germany GmbH; Germany  KTBL e.V.; Germany  SGS S.A.; Spain  NKUA; Greece  Condis Supermercats S.A.; Spain  UPM; Spain

More Information Dr. Sjaak Wolfert (coordinator) e‐mail: [email protected] LEI Wageningen UR phone: +31 317 485 939 P.O. Box 35 mobile: +31 624 135 790 6700 AA Wageningen www.smartagrifood.eu

SAF D100.1

2 SmartAgriFood

Executive Summary

The food sector is one of the most important sectors of the economy, encompassing agriculture, the food industry, retail, and eventually, all members of society as consumers. With its responsibility of serving consumers with food that is safe, readily available, affordable and of the quality and diversity consumers expect, the food sector needs a) to be efficient, b) to build on an appropriate organization and control of processes, and c) to provide assurance on the safety and quality of its products which consumers could trust. Efficiency, process control and consumer communications are all closely related to the use of information and communication technology. Global networks, the internet, networked devices, sensors, and communication intelligence are of foremost relevance for the sustainability of the food sector in meeting its responsibility. There is a long history of efforts in utilizing information and communication technology for the food sector’s needs. Precision agriculture in primary production as well as tracking and tracing of food products along the food value chain characterize major initiatives in serving the sector’s and consumers’ needs. However, these examples also demonstrate the complexity in issues. The EU looks back at more than 10 years of tracking and tracing research while precision agriculture is dealt with in global conference series since many years as well. It is not the least due to deficiencies in the capability of information and communication technology that these initiatives have not reached widespread adoption irrespective of needs. Especially tracking and tracing as a baseline information and communication activity for transparency in the food sector has not reached a level of operation that matches the global network activity of the food sector in sourcing and sales. The emerging capabilities of the Future Internet promise to overcome major barriers of the past and to support the sector in its global activities towards feeding the increasing world population with an ever decreasing resource base. However, the utilization of capabilities of the Future Internet can build on a wealth of knowledge from literature, experiments and best practice activities that can provide guidance on how and where to move. The project partners have collected more than 100 knowledge cases from various angles that capture a broad variety of different aspects related to the project’s three use cases farming, logistics, and awareness. The uses cases provide a knowledge base which could support project developments in different phases of the project. They are related to more than 60 indicators which should support the identification of cases that might be of relevance for any emerging project scenario. The report gives a rough overview on the orientation of the cases and provides a selection table in EXCEL format to easily identify cases of relevance and to retrieve them from a data base accessible through the internet. In case of need they can be provided as an annex to this report in printed form covering about 350 pages or as data file with a size of about 15 MB.

SAF D100.1

3 SmartAgriFood

Abbreviations

D Deliverable Future Internet Public Private FI-PPP Partnership

Information and Communication ICT Technology

IT Information technology

RFID Radio-frequency identification

SMEs Small and medium enterprises

SAF D100.1

4 SmartAgriFood

Table of Contents Page

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………….3

1 Introduction and Overview………………………………………………………………….6

2 Competence Network……………………………………………………………………….7

3 Approach for Case Collection……………………………………………………..………..9

4 Case Collection and Documentation………………………………………………………12

5 Basic Analysis……………………………………………………………………………..15 5.1 Template for Analysis (Search) 5.2 Some General Relationships 5.21 Affected groups vs use cases 5.22 Organizational focus 5.3 Technology and Future Internet

6 Basic Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………...18

7 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………....20

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………21 Appendix 1: Previous RTD projects with project relevance (source DoW)……………..21 Appendix 2: Complete list of case contributions with title used in the data base………..24 Appendix 3: Selection table for identifying cases according to selected indicators……..28 Appendix 4: Documentation of cases (table of content)…………………………………30

SAF D100.1

5 SmartAgriFood

1 Introduction and Overview

A project of the kind of SmartAgriFood does not evolve from scratch but builds on a broad range of earlier projects, developments, case studies, experiences from agriculture, industry or retail, experiments in living lab or field trial environments, and from scientific contributions related to the food sector and beyond. Just to highlight the depth of earlier contributions, the European Re- search Agenda has in 2011 organized a conference looking back at 10 years of European research in tracking and tracing systems which constitute a basic element in use cases of the SmartAgriFood project. Similar relationships can be demonstrated in other project areas including consumer communication, quality and environmental management, agricultural information exchange, logistics, and the use of information and communication technology in the sector. One might consider such time frames a sign of limited engagement. However, the opposite is true. The agri-food sector is complex as few other sectors are, with its diversity of products, the deterioration of fresh products within a short time, the dependency of agricultural production on weather conditions as well as on the control of diseases or pests, the limitations in the evaluation of quality characteristics at the final customer, the consumer, the relevance of bulk products, the distances between areas of production and areas of consumption, the dependency on cultural backgrounds in production and consumption, the dominance of SMEs, the volatility of markets and many other issues of similar relevance. Since many years, European research, complemented by national and international initiatives has dealt with many of these issues reaching from basic research to experimental field activities and beyond. These initiatives have provided the base on which the project SmartAgriFood can build. It’s a basis which makes a move from research and experiments to the development of prototype systems and their implementation in the sector feasible. Members of the project have joined ranks in collecting all the cases that might be of relevance for the project development (see appendix 2). They collected more than 100 cases which are provided in a data base that is accessible to members of the project through an internet interface (see also appendix 4). The cases are characterized by a large number of indicators which allow a structured view and a selection of cases according to needs and interests. The selected access is organized through a spreadsheet table (EXCEL, see appendix 3) which allows sorting and filtering and provides a direct link to the data base and the selected cases. The data base is not closed but is meant to be constantly updated throughout the project. The provision and collection of the cases constitutes the principal content of deliverable D100.1 of the project. The following presentation is an extension of this task. It provides a condensed elaboration on the cases and discusses their structuring, focus and opportunities for use. The line of discussion starts with a quick overview on the competence network providing the cases (chapter 2) and an outline of the templates and forms used to collect the necessary information (chapter 3). The template and forms demonstrate the indicators that were used to identify the content and focus of the cases. Chapter 4 provides a basic introduction into the data base and the selection table that links cases with the great number of indicators that characterize the cases. A rough quantitative overview on the source and focus of the different cases is provided in chapter 5. While the number of cases related to a certain subject area cannot be taken as a sign of relevance of this area it gives some basic indication on interest and engagement in the subject area. In chapter 6 the report presents some cross-tabulations of indicators and ‘lessons learned’ which allow to draw some basic conclusions from the cases with regard to their potential use within the project. However, any more in-depth analysis requires a focused analysis of cases selected ac-

SAF D100.1

6 SmartAgriFood cording to the specific criteria of relevance for the specific problem to be dealt with. That’s where the selection table comes in for use.

2 Competence Network

The cooperation of the project partners in collecting the cases assured the consideration of a broad range of competences. They could scan the range of different domains they are involved in. Table 1 provides an overview of partners involved in the colelction. The partners were complemented by three university working groups under the guidance of the authors who were scanning various fields as a safeguard against overlooking some developments that might be outside the partner domains. As the partners involve groups from research as well as from service providers, system engineering groups, standardization, and industry, the competence network covers the range of issues the project has to deal with. The competence of partner contributors is underlined by the more than 50 European projects with relevance for the project in which many of the partners have been involved within the research domains of agri-food as well as of information and communication technologies (see appendix 1). Reaching beyond the proximity of the project many more projects were contributing to the broad expertise and experiences of partner groups.

SAF D100.1

7 SmartAgriFood

Table 1: List of contributors

Short Organisation Name Country Short description Name Partners

ASI Ariadna Servicios Informáticos S.L. Spain ICT system and service provider United AST Aston University Research partner Kingdom Institut für Angewandte Administrative coordinator, RTD part- ATB Germany Systemtechnik Bremen GmbH ner ATOS ORIGIN Sociedad Anonima ATOS Spain ICT system and service provider Espanola Campden BRI Magyarország Non- Exploitation and Dissemination Man- CBHU Hungary profit Kft. ager, RTD, industry partner (repre- CENTMA CentMa GmbH Germany Research partner Stichting Dienst Landbouwkundig Lead participant, scientific coordinator, DLO Netherlands Onderzoek research / RTD partner Industry partner (retail), member- EHI EHI Retail Institute GmbH Germany owned organisation Industry partner (logistics), member- GS1 GS1 Germany GmbH Germany owned organisation, standardisation Huawei Technologies Düsseldorf HWDU Germany ICT system and service provider GmbH Industry partner (agricultural equip- JD Deere & Company Germany ment and machinery) Kuratorium für Technik und RTD partner, member-owned organi- KTBL Germany Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. sation, standardisation body Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutki- MTT Finland Research / RTD partner muskeskus (MTT Agrifood Research) National and Kapodistrian University NKUA Greece Research partner of Athens Payment and Control Agency for Industry partner (farmers), member- OPEKEPE Greece Guidance and Guarantee Community owned organisation SGS International Certification Ser- Industry partner (quality management, SGS Spain vices Ibérica, S.A. certification) Nederlandse organisatie voor TNO Netherlands Research / RTD partner toegepast-natuurwetenschappelijk UPM Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Spain Research partner

VTT Technical Research Centre VTT Finland Research / RTD partner

WU Wageningen University Netherlands Research partner

Others Agribusiness seminar working group, Group 1 Germany Precision agriculture and farming University of Bonn Agribusiness seminar working group, Group 2 Germany Agri-Food logistics University of Bonn Agribusiness seminar working group, Group 3 Germany Awareness and transparency University of Bonn

SAF D100.1

8 SmartAgriFood

3 Approach for Case Collection

In collecting the cases, the project implemented a two stage approach. In the first stage, the cases were provided by partners using a basic template as shown in table 2. This basic template captured the most important issues. It provided the base for both, comprehensive large scale cases and cases with a narrow view. The template allows a first rough categorization and grouping of cases according to a small number of selected indicators. A core element in the template involves the specification of ‘lessons learned’ with relevance to the project objectives. The templates with the cases constitute the content of the case data base. The more than 100 case descriptions collected provide a rich source of information on the ‘state- of-the-art’ in the broad range of issues that are relevant for the project. A few cases discuss an identical case but from a different perspective, emphasizing either the application content or the IT functionalities. This type of variation supports the communication within the project where different backgrounds and competences need to come together in an interdisciplinary project team. In a second round of analysis, the cases were further specified according to a more extensive number of indicators as listed in table 3. They allow a detailed specification and categorization of cases depending on interests and needs. The specifications were provided by the partners who delivered the respective case. With the different backgrounds of partners, there might be some differences in indicator specification. But overall, the characterization of cases is sufficient for selecting and grouping cases for a further analysis.

SAF D100.1

9 SmartAgriFood

Table 2: Template for documentation

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All Name this information item:

Provider of this information: Name: e‐mail: Project Partner:

Background ___ Literature ___ Project ___ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the ___ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) ___ Other, specify: ______

Focus ___ Information needs of businesses (please mark the compe‐ ___ Information needs of consumers tence domains the in‐ ___ Information needs of policy formation does focus on; ___ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, multiple marks possible) storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation ___ Chain communication organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) ___ System organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) ___ Process organization (production, distribution processes) ___ IT components ___ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector ___ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.)

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider in developing our own concept, the conclusion of the literature source or the project results)

Further information Optional

SAF D100.1

10 SmartAgriFood

Table 3: Specification of case characteristics (taken from survey round 2)

O: Grouping of examples ___ Study ___ Prototype system ___ Operational system (used) ___ Comprehensive system, service ___ System component, service component ___ Standards ___ Others: ______

A: Characteristics and focus ___ Group 1 (use case): : ___ Logistics ___ Awareness ___ Farming ___ Group 2 (focus): ___ Tracking and tracing service ___ Other user services ___ System design and organization ___ System operation and management ___ Group 3 (functionality): ___ Data exchange, sending, receiving ___ Data processing, filtering, aggregating ___ Data collection, capturing, scanning ___ Searching, selecting, filtering, signaling ___ Assuring data ownership ___ Data security ___ Ontologies ___ Group 4 (internet): ___ Use of internet ___ Contribution to Internet of the Future ___ Utilization of Internet of the Future ___ Others: ______

B: Affected groups ___ Farms ___ Agric. Trade ___ Processing ___ Retail ___ Consumers ___ System providers ___ Others: ______

C: Future Internet Domains ___ Semantic Web ___ Standards/Protocols ___ Internet of Things ___ Interoperability ___ Flexible Connections ___ Service Oriented Web ___ System security

D: Technology ___ RFID ___ Networked devices ___ Sensors ___ Comm. technology ___ Agents ___ Central databases ___ Distributed data bases ___ Scanners ___ Signaling ___ Multicasting ___ Broadcasting ___ Others: ______

E: Lessons for system organization, function, operation, management ___ Mobility, flexibility, autonomy ___ Independence from central management ___ System efficiency ___ Information availability ___ Communication with target groups ___ Others: ______

SAF D100.1

11 SmartAgriFood

4 Case Collection and Documentation

The cases in the data base cover all three use cases of the project, farming, logistics along the food chain, and food awareness. About three quarters of cases deal with farming and logistics with an even distribution among them, about one quarter deal with food awareness (table 4). The numbers in the table exceed the number of cases as some cases could be linked to more than one use case. The somewhat lower number of cases linked with food awareness is probably due to the development of interests in the utilization of IT technology over time. The initial interest in using IT technology was focused on improving business interaction between enterprises and supporting process efficiency along the food value chain. The provision of information on products and processes towards the final customers in the chain was of secondary interest and received only attention in connection with a) scandals that created distrust among consumers and business customers and asked for information that could provide some guarantees of food safety or quality, b) increasing consumer interest in information on food, and c) the development of quality and environmental management activities which required communication between partners in the chain. Furthermore, it is only recently that technologies are available that allow extensive communication with consumers and the development of communication schemes along the chain that are not devoted to organizational efficiency but on improving information on products and processes.

Table 4: Contributions per use case

Use Case Contributions Farming 54 Logistics 62 Awareness 36

The number of cases provided by the different groups is listed in table 5. With a few exceptions, the number of cases provided by individual partners is below 10. The exceptions are partners that are engaged in standardization (GS1) and certification (SGS). Those partners are deeply involved with activities and developments in industry and also engaged in driving developments forward.

SAF D100.1

12 SmartAgriFood

Table 5: Provider of contributions

Partner Contributions Partner Contributions ASI 1 JD 4 AST 1 KTBL 5 ATB 9 LEI-WUR 4 ATOS 2 MTT 2 CBHU 7 NKUA 6 CentMa 9 SGS 26 EHI 3 TNO 2 GS1 19 UPM 6 HWDU 4

When looking at the background of contributions (table 6) it becomes obvious that the use case domains are still deep in a development period. A majority is linked to projects of various kinds and as such part of a development activity. However, while the sources of cases (table 7) involve larger numbers of studies, prototype systems, and standards, they also involve a substantial number (24) of operational systems that are actually in use. This demonstrates the high level of preparatory activities that provide the base for a potentially successful project activity. A detailed list of all cases is provided in the appendix (appendix 2).

Table 6: Background of contributions

Background Contributions Literature 17 Project 43 System/Product 3 Expert Experience 6 Standards 18 Other 37

SAF D100.1

13 SmartAgriFood

Table 7: Grouping of contributions

Group of contributions Contributions Study 27 Prototype system 16 Operational system (used) 24 Comprehensive system, service 8 System component, service component 12 Standards 28 Others 3

SAF D100.1

14 SmartAgriFood

5 Basic Analysis

5.1 Template for Analysis (Search) A more detailed analysis of the case studies provided builds on a comprehensive analysis table that is provided in the appendix (appendix 3) as an EXCEL analysis table. It relates all cases to the different indicators and allows project partners to do their own analysis depending on needs. For the duration of the project, it is planned to make the EXCEL table and the individual cases accessible through the Internet link http://bscw.ilb.uni-bonn.de. By opening the EXCEL table one can directly open any case study through the links listed in the EXCEL table for each of the cases. By using an EXCEL table one could easily sort the case studies according to indicators of interest allowing a focused view and a selected opening of case studies. Some general relationships between cases and indicators are summarized in the following chapter. For guiding in the analysis we use a colour scheme were relatively lower numbers are marked in red, relatively higher numbers in green.

5.2 Some General Relationships

5.21 Affected groups vs use cases Cases are initially linked to the different project use cases (farming, logistics, awareness). How- ever, within the use cases they may affect different stages of the food value chain. Considered are farms, agricultural trade, food processing, retail and consumers representing the classical stages of the food chain. In the context of our project, an additional ‘stage’ is represented by the providers of information and communication systems which link the various stages of the food chain with their information services. Table 8 gives an indication on relationships.

Table 8: Affected groups vs. use cases

Affected Groups Total Total Farming Logistics Awareness Farms 61 53 43 33 Agricultural Trade 43 30 36 22 Processing 55 35 46 26 Retail 61 41 53 32 Consumers 37 29 29 28 System Providers 41 30 39 24 Others 26 18 20 15

It is very obvious that the majority of cases linked to the use case 'farming' does focus on farms, whereas the majority of cases linked to the use case ‘logistics’ reaches primarily from farms to

SAF D100.1

15 SmartAgriFood retail (with an emphasis on processing and retail) and includes, in addition, system providers. In the use case ‘awareness’ the number of cases is lower as has been discussed before. However, within these boundaries, the cases affect quite evenly all stages of the chain including consumers as well as system providers. This highlights the need for cooperation along the chain for best serving information needs at the end of the chain.

5.22 Organizational focus The organizational focus of cases is captured through a diverse cluster of alternatives (table 9). They include in our case information needs, the organizations of information or communication systems, process organizations, IT components, Future Internet functionalities, tracking and tracing services, system design, and system operation and management. Specific interest is in information needs of businesses, information and communication organization, tracking and tracing, system design, and system operation. From the table it is apparent that the focus interest is quite similarly concentrated in all three use cases.

Table 9: Organizational focus in total and vs. use cases

Organizational Focus Total Total Farming Logistics Awareness Information Needs of Businesses 54 29 37 20 Information Needs of Consumers 24 14 17 12 Information Needs of Policy 13 6 6 5 Information Organization for Logistics/Transparency 53 28 43 20 Information Organization for Farm Cooperation 22 11 8 2 Chain Communication Organization 42 16 26 13 System Organization 29 12 17 9 Process Organization 25 10 14 8 IT Components 41 23 23 11 Future Internet Functionalities 24 18 15 12 Tracking and Tracing Service 32 20 31 14 Other User Services 35 22 28 22 System Design and Organization 33 24 27 19 System Operation and Management 36 26 27 13 Other 11 2 2 1

5.3 Technology and Future Internet In discussing various technologies and especially technologies related to networked devices, the provision of cases is primarily directed towards classical networked devices of various kinds and

SAF D100.1

16 SmartAgriFood data bases (table 10). Agents and broadcasting are emerging technologies that are less considered in the cases but will certainly receive greater attention in the future. Related to issues of the Future Internet the focus of provided cases is on standards, interoperability and the Future Internet in general (table 11).

Table 10: Technology in total and vs. use cases

Technology Total Total Farming Logistics Awareness RFID 24 17 23 12 Networked Devices 26 17 20 13 Sensors 22 14 17 7 Communication Technology 42 26 33 14 Agents 6 4 4 1 Central Databases 26 17 19 14 Distributed Data Bases 34 21 25 17 Scanners 18 12 17 7 Signalling 9 7 8 4 Multicasting 4 3 3 2 Broadcasting 4 3 4 2 Others 13 4 13 2

Table 11: Future Internet vs. use cases

Future Internet Total Total Farming Logistics Awareness Semantic Web 11 7 7 7 Standards/Protocols 41 28 34 21 Internet of Things 41 27 34 18 Interoperability 37 25 31 16 Flexible Connections 22 14 20 10 Service Oriented Web 29 20 20 16 System Security 9 7 9 5

SAF D100.1

17 SmartAgriFood

6 Basic Evaluation

The analysis of cases allows a first basic evaluation of their content. A core element refers to the aspect ‘lessons learned’. Table 12 provides a good indication on issues addressed. Apart from content issues like ‘information availability’ aspects of efficiency as well as mobility, flexibility, and autonomy have been addressed in the cases provided.

Table 12: Lessons learned

Total Lessons learned Cases Mobility, Flexibility, Autonomy 34 Independence From Central Management 18 System Efficiency 53 Information Availability 54 Communication with Target Groups 18 Others 15

The ‘lessons learned’ have a close relationship with elements of the Future Internet. Table 13 gives an indication on the relevance of the Future Internet for the ‘lessons learned’ in the cases that were provided. System security is an exception. It is an issue with limited relevance for prototype systems and project developments where most cases have been derived from and has, as such not yet found appropriate attention in the data base. There is a need for further elaboration of the issue. A related picture is provided in table 14 where elements of the Future Internet are linked to IT functionalities. The primary focus of cases dealing with elements of the Internet or Future Inter- net is on data activities including collection, processing, and exchange, i.e. the classical view on IT activities. Little attention in cases has been placed on data ownership, one of the central issues in the organizational feasibility of systems. The same is true for data security and ontologies. Deficiencies in the consideration of these issues have been of major relevance in system failures where the technical system organization was fitting.

SAF D100.1

18 SmartAgriFood

Table 13: Lessons learned related to Internet/Future Internet

Internet Future Internet

Lessons Use of Use of Internet to Contribution Future Internet Utilization of Future Internet Semantic Web Standards/ Protocols Internet of Things Interoperability Flexible Connections Oriented Service Web Security System Mobility, Flexibility, Autonomy 20 16 9 3 17 22 20 17 15 6 Independence from Central Management 12 11 6 2 10 13 9 9 9 3 System Efficiency 25 23 16 8 34 31 27 18 13 7 Information Availability 31 22 14 8 26 28 28 17 24 6 Communication with Target Groups 13 6 7 3 9 10 12 9 9 4 Others 5 2 8 2 10 9 5 5 6 2

Table 14: Functionalities related to Internet/Future Internet

Internet Future Internet

Functionalities Use of Internet to Contribution Future Internet Utilization of Future Internet Semantic Web Standards/ Protocols Internet of Things Interoperability Flexible Connections Oriented Service Web System Security Data Exchange, Sending, Receiving 33 22 16 8 29 31 29 19 20 7 Data Processing, Filtering, Aggregating 18 9 10 3 11 16 13 10 10 4 Data Collection, Capturing, Scanning 24 16 12 3 18 23 17 14 18 5 Searching, Selecting, Filtering, Signaling 15 9 9 4 11 15 11 8 12 3 Assuring Data Ownership 8 3 2 1 2 5 5 2 5 2 Data Security 9 5 4 3 6 6 7 4 3 4 Ontologies 9 4 2 6 6 3 6 1 6 0

SAF D100.1

19 SmartAgriFood

7 Summary

This report provides a broad knowledge base comprised of more than 100 examples on information and communication use with relevance for the project. The examples are discussed in this report and analysed according to a number of criteria. They relate to all three use cases of the project and cover a wide variety of information and communication systems and technology. The relationships are captured in a selection table which allows focused access to cases which are accessible through the internet. A rough analysis of lessons learned makes it apparent that envisaged capabilities of the Future Internet could contribute substantially to the development of the sector. Mobility, flexibility, autonomy, efficiency or decentralization are some of the key- words that evolve from analysis. The Future Internet could provide solutions to overcome traditional barriers in these areas.

SAF D100.1

20 SmartAgriFood

Appendix

Appendix 1: Previous RTD projects with project relevance (source DoW)

Project Description AgriXchange is a coordination and support action to setup a net-work for common data exchange in the agricultural sector. The network includes local standards such AgriXchange as the German AgroXML and the Dutch AgroConnect, as well as international standardisation bodies in particular UNCEFACT. Development of a long-term shared vision on Ambient Intelligent technologies for a Ami@Netfood networked agri-food sector. An innovative methodology for improving an organisation’s operation based on Ambi- ent Intelligent technologies was developed, providing procedures and reference mod- AMI-4-SME els. This is complemented by an SOA and middleware for RFID usage in the integrated enterprise. Pilot Business Intelligence (BI) in Dutch flower supply chain, operational supply chain BI in Flower BI is in a preliminary stage of development, among others because of integration Supply Chains issues. The BonFIRE (Building service testbeds for Future Internet Research and Experimen- tation) project will design, build and operate a multi-site cloud facility to support appli- BonFIRE cations, services and systems research targeting the Internet of Services community within the Future Internet. Resolve the barriers to the implementation of RFID in Europe, based upon GS1 Bridge EPCglobal standards. User involvement is a mandatory requirement for successful implementation, de- C@R ployment and operation of services and TIC infrastructures at rural environments. (Collaboration SOA deployed for rural areas should be adapted to the lack of communication infra- at Rural) structures, the specific user interfaces of the rural users, and the integration of sensors and actuators. CASSANDRA (Common assessment and analysis of risk in global supply chains) addresses the visibility needs of business and government in the international flow of CASSANDRA containerised cargo to and from the EU orders by integrating existing information systems in global supply chains, including food cargo. Research on how to effectively realise business interactions e.g. in the fruit chain by using a highly decentralised ICT support. Aiming at the usage of a “networked devices enabled intelligence” taking into account e.g. RFID-based systems and Global CuteLoop Navigation Satellite Systems for realising and using intelligent system functionalities, directly disburdening the actors with respect to an efficient information access, event- driven workflow control and decentralised access/ authentication structures. Digital Business Eco-system (DBE project) as a selforganising digital infrastructure aimed at creating a digital environment for networked organisations that supports the DBE project cooperation, the knowledge sharing, the development of open and adaptive technologies and evolutionary business models is an example of the complexity and versatili- ty of current and future integrated enterprises. Digital Horti- Dutch horticulture is active in ICT innovation, but emphasis on inter-enterprise pro- culture jects, focus on data exchange and operational perspective. E3: End to end Heterogeneous communication systems federation, short range and long range radio efficiency systems usage for data propagation. Enabling businesses to semantically integrate the IoT into mainstream enterprise EBBITS systems and support interoperable end-to-end business applications. ECOLEAD Dynamic Virtual Organizations & Professional Virtual Communities. project Developing a distributed decision support system for virtual organisations to support E-MULT trade relations of SMEs. Monitoring agents were used to supervise the content of web sites and legacy systems. E-trust Integration of electronic commerce in trading environments.

SAF D100.1

21 SmartAgriFood

The basic concept of Euridice is to build an information services platform centred on EURIDICE the individual cargo item and on its interaction with the surrounding environment and the user. In order to use the funding for R&D activities on Future Internet in an efficient way and to ensure that reasonable results will correspond to the investments, it is neces- EX-FI sary to establish tight and coordinated partnership among all relevant European stakeholder in the sector. The project will showcase the ability of RFID technologies to make a return on investment for SMEs in the food industry. The active participation of the food sector SHs (i.e. food associations, technology platforms, regional and national level repre- FARM2FORK senting bodies, society, industry, regulators, consumers association) could provide a natural platform for dissemination of the project results as well as pave the basis for the future uptake of the technologies. Development of logistics orchestration concepts in the ornamental plant supply chain Florilog network. Future Farm analyse the demands and principles for standardized information management in agriculture. It aims to provide principles of modern, internet-based Farm- Future Farm Management-Information-Systems to support real-time management decisions and compliance to standards. It includes the integration of farm and field (precision farming, geo information, etc.). Realising a peer to peer based system for the harvest, transport and weighing of agri- IBIS food products from the field to subsequent processors. Using a decentralised and partly decoupled infrastructure in the rural environment. Syntax and protocol standardization alone rather hamper interoperability more than simplifying it, as there are a number of non-orthogonal standards with different design iGreen goals. Integration between these different standards can be achieved by semantic technologies using networked vocabularies and ontologies. IoT-A, an IP project, addresses the IoT Architecture and proposes the creation of an IoT-A architectural reference model and an initial set of key building blocks. They shall be the crucial foundations for fostering a future IoT. IoT-I, brings together key actors from all relevant but currently fragmented IoT communities in Europe to work jointly towards a common vision of the IoT. It represents IoT-I an attempt in building a unified IoT community in Europe, going across boundaries of disparate technology sectors, in order to create a joint European IoT strategic vision and aligning this vision with the current developments on the Future Internet. IoT@Work focuses on developing self-configuration mechanisms, to enable secure IoT@Work plug and work IoT. Devices are autoconfigured and ready to cooperate with each other as soon as they are plugged into the factory network. WP Innochain: exchange of information and Tracking and tracing through quality ISAfruit management system are among the identified critical success factors of innovative- ness in fruit supply chains. IT Large stakeholder numbers and the resulting variety of demands on functionalities existing in the agri-food sector disallow the use of non-scalable technologies like FoodTrace RPC-based services implemented using e. g. technologies like SOAP. A resourceori- ented design allows for a much more flexible design. Main goal is to generate a SOA infrastructure to compose services related to mobility ITCHAIN and context aware with the objective to ease interoperability of legacy systems in supply chains and facilitate the support to collaborative decision systems. Exploring the fundamental problem on how to use different services to enhance knowledge and knowledge management services to manage social interactions in a K-NET networked enterprise. Context under which knowledge is collectively generated and managed can be used to enhance this knowledge for its further use within intra- enterprise collaboration. Knowledge-based production and flexibility is hampered by a poor level of information KodA integration in Dutch arable farming. Advanced location based services for several usage areas like fleet management, LIAISON support of lone workers etc. In the near future, enterprises and organizations will make use of Service Oriented MASTER Architectures in their IT infrastructures and applications, relying on multiple services to compose others. Mobility@ Realising a new approach for the mobile worker in rural areas, lacking permanent

SAF D100.1

22 SmartAgriFood

Forest Internet access, requiring multi-modal user interfaces and location based support based on interactive usage of geographic information systems. Using GNSS and RFID (active & passive) based navigation in rural settings. MoniQA Impact assessment of integrating new technology in food safety analysis. ICT-based services will fuel economic growth and well-being of citizens in the future NESSI 2010 of our society. Netgrow SME innovation and learning through networks. NEXOF-RA (NEXOF Reference Architecture) project is the first step in the process of building NEXOF the generic open platform for creating and delivering applications NEXOF-RA enabling the creation of service based ecosystems where service providers and third parties easy collaborate. The objective of nextMEDIA is to enhance the coordination of the efforts in Europe towards producing a clear situation of the Future Media Internet, create common pil- NEXTMEDIA lars (e.g. the Future Media Internet reference architecture for Europe) and support the results of the developments of the European projects. Developing a methodological approach, software and a trace XML protocol support- P2P ing data collection from the traceability systems in companies belonging to the agri- food sector with a specific focus on the swine value chain. It provides an international forum for focusing and disseminating the results of Euro- PETER pean Commission investment in research on food traceability. PIFPL has looked into the use of pictural information on flower and plant products in the logistics chain between grower, auction and exporter. The main conclusion is that PIFPL pictural information can be used for realtime selling of products as long as there are standard agreements on the quality of pictures and the metadata for using and searching them. Plant-to- Pilot on RFID-enabled trolleys in Dutch horticultural supply chains to identi- Customer fy/demonstrate benefits. Enhancements of pest risk analysis techniques, among others with decision support Practique systems and standardising pest risk assessments. Design principles allowing for integration of datatypes and elements in XML data Pre Agro II schema structures to facilitate inclusion of geographic data via the Geography Markup Language into systems using other document and data structure definitions. Precision Tools for innovative Controlled Traffic Farming, Fertilization and Crop Protection. Farming The aim is to develop high quality pork products in sustainable production systems Q-PorkChains with low environmental impact. SEAMLESS Component-based Framework for Integrated Assessment of agricultural systems. Developing highly reliable and secure service-based selfadopting solutions aiming at Self-Learning integration of control & maintenance of production systems. Future Internet Research and Experimentation project Self-management in FI, cogni- SELFNET tive decision making, Situation awareness, data clustering, SON. SIEGE has looked into the possibilities of standardising the information interfaces of equipment in greenhouses. Thereby these interfaces can also be used from outside a SIEGE greenhouse to monitor and control the climate remotely. The main conclusion is that a lot can be gained in this area, but that the problem is more at an organisational level. SOA4All (Service Oriented Architectures for All) is a Large-Scale Integrating Project funded by the European Seventh Framework Programme, under the Service and Software Architectures, Infrastructures and Engineering research area. SOA4All is SOA4ALL endorsed by the Networked European Software and Services Initiative (NESSI). SOA4All aims at realizing a world where billions of parties are exposing and consuming services via advanced Web technology. TAC (Traceability for Agriculture Competitiveness) will improve international competi- TAC tiveness of the Agriculture sector in Egypt by applying traceability research results (tailored traceability system according to Egypt context). Requirements analysis on tracking and tracing in the food sector showed up a num- Transparent ber of characteristic attributes and properties of the sector as a whole, of the products Food being tackled and of systems already in place. Realising a Web 2.0 based approach for enabling SMEs to develop and maintain WEB-2-SME internet based extensions of their core products not requiring a fundamental redesign of their systems.

SAF D100.1

23 SmartAgriFood

Appendix

Appendix 2: Complete list of case contributions with title used in the data base (order according to provider of case contribution; case number and page number refer to the appendix)

No. Provider Title of Contribution Page

12 ASI Crop Growth Monitoring Study 64

108 AST China Internet of Things in Food 314

75 ATB AmI@NetFood 237

AMI@Netfood: European ICT - Strategic Research Agenda for Agri-food & 109 ATB 315 Rural Development

76 ATB AMI-4-SME 239

77 ATB E-Mult 241

78 ATB IBIS 243

79 ATB K-NET 245

80 ATB Mobility@forest 247

81 ATB P2P 249

82 ATB WEB-2-SME 251

10 ATOS RATIS & TRACEBACK 60

9 ATOS SOA4ALL 58

23 CBHU Agritool EUREKA Project 102

Guidelines for redesigning the supply chain - classification electronic identi- 37 CBHU 138 fication traceability

56 CBHU Milk quota 178

70 CBHU RFID 225

91 CBHU Traceability 277

92 CBHU Transparent_Food 279

94 CBHU Truefood project 284

13 CentMa CuteLoop 68

26 CentMa Flexible tag datalogger for food logistics 109

27 CentMa FlexSMELL 111

44 CentMa Fundamental limitations of current Internet and the path to Future Internet 154

54 CentMa LOGSEC - logistics and supply chain security 174

SAF D100.1

24 SmartAgriFood

55 CentMa METRO Group - The RFID application spectrum 176

84 CentMa Sustainability Information Services for Agri-Food Supply Networks 255

45 CentMa The Internet of Things - Networked objects and smart devices 156

Ubiquitous ID: Standards for Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of 95 CentMa 286 Things

104 CentMa Why the internet only just works 303

107 EHI Beef Labelling 311

From Crisis Management to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case 110 EHI 343 Study of EHI

106 EHI Future Store 1 and 2 310

EANCOM project: Electronic order of shipment, transport status, calculation 16 GS1 82 and payment advice with company FruitLine (logistics service provider)

15 GS1 EANCOM/DESADV 73

ECR Blue Book: Using Traceability in the Supply Chain to meet Consumer 17 GS1 84 Safety Expectations Electronic Product Code (EPC) as the means to uniquely identify any object 20 GS1 94 in the food supply chain Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) - the standard for 21 GS1 enhancing visibility (i.e., "what", "when", "where" and "why") in supply 97 chains

22 GS1 EPC/RFID for Fresh Meat Container Logistics 100

30 GS1 Global product classification for fruits and vegetables/dairy 121

36 GS1 Global Traceability Standard 136

35 GS1 GS1 Application Identifier System and GS1 Data Carriers 130

33 GS1 GS1 DataBar Implementation Case Study (Feile Foods) 126

GS1 Guideline "specialties in the logistic of prepacked meat and meat 31 GS1 123 products" GS1 PROZEUS Practice Project "From Stable to Table - Transparency in 32 GS1 124 the Process Chain of Pork"

34 GS1 GS1 XML Messages 128

53 GS1 New recommendation for the logistic specific features of the dairy products 172

Object Name Service (ONS) and Federated ONS - the key stone of the 60 GS1 189 future B2C architecture and internet of goods/things

67 GS1 Recall service and standard 212

Supply Chain Event Management - an approach for smart(er) logistics in 72 GS1 230 the food supply chain

89 GS1 Traceability Case Study Rasting 269

65 GS1 Urban Retail Logistics 208

73 HWDU EU FP7 SENSEI Project 232

SAF D100.1

25 SmartAgriFood

83 HWDU EU FP7 SOCRATES Project 253

103 HWDU EU FP7 WATER-BEE Project 301

52 HWDU Literature on infrared animal screening 170

5 JD agriXchange project - network for data exchange in agriculture 48

ICT-AGRI Country Report: Reports on the organisation of research pro- 111 JD grammes and research institutes in 15 European countries (this report encompasses about 350 pages and is available separately)

38 JD ICT-AGRI project 140

40 JD iGreen project (John Deere) 144

agroXML - standard for data exchange for farm management information 8 KTBL 55 systems Data Exchange Automation for the Integrated Administration and Control 49 KTBL 165 System of the EU

41 KTBL iGreen project (KTBL) 146

48 KTBL ISOagriNet data exchange standard for livestock farming 163

93 KTBL Transparent_Food2 281

4 LEI-WUR Agri-Food Living Labs 45

6 LEI-WUR agriXchange 50

14 LEI-WUR Digital Horticulture 70

64 LEI-WUR Program on precision agriculture (PPL) 206

57 MTT Assisted compliance with standards (Smart Farming) 180

58 MTT Information flows and Future FMIS 182

18 NKUA Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 86

25 NKUA Farm Management Information System (FMIS) 106

42 NKUA Information Fusion 148

71 NKUA Risks in Agriculture/AgInsurance 227

74 NKUA Smart Farming 234

105 NKUA Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) Aspects 305

1 SGS Agriberia 35

2 SGS Agricultural Market Information Virtual Library 37

11 SGS BS EN 16001 Energy Efficiency Standard 62

90 SGS Characteristics of Traceability Systems 271

7 SGS Eco-farming/Agroecology: A sustainable way to improve crop yields 52

Environmental Standards in the Agri-Food sector: The National Agri- 19 SGS 90 Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI)

SAF D100.1

26 SmartAgriFood

24 SGS European Food Information Resource (EuroFIR) Project 104

28 SGS FoodTracE Project 112

39 SGS IFS and BRC Certification Bodies 142

46 SGS ISO 22000 Food Safety Management Systems Certification 158

47 SGS ISO 28000 Supply Chain Security Standard 161

43 SGS Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture (JITAg) 151

50 SGS Legislation Europe 167

51 SGS Legislation Spain 169

3 SGS Monitoring Agriculture with Remote Sensing (MARS Project - EC) 42

59 SGS ONE TRACE SYSTEM Egypt 184

61 SGS Open Innovation in the Agri-Food Sector 192

62 SGS Organic Waste Reuse for Urban Agriculture 195

63 SGS Patents and trademarks information 201

66 SGS Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) 210

68 SGS RFID Application in Logistics and Supply Chain Management 215

85 SGS TAPA FSR Transport Security Certification 257

86 SGS Technological Watch System in Agri-food sector 260

29 SGS The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) 117

69 SGS Traceability from "farm to fork" using RFID technology 220

102 SGS Waste Management 296

Chain Information Systems that can be used in the logistics process to 88 TNO maintain and provide product quality information through the entire chain 267 from grower to retailer Product Quality Specifications that can be used in the logistics process to 87 TNO 265 keep track of quality parameters of products being shipped

96 UPM [email protected]: Service architectures for rural areas 288

97 UPM [email protected]: Service architectures for rural areas 290

[email protected]: Components interfaces for service components of rural ser- 98 UPM 291 vices

99 UPM [email protected]: Services Oriented Architectures for rural services 292

100 UPM [email protected]: Services and service components for rural Living Labs 294

[email protected]: Methodologies for user involvement for discovering, prototyp- 101 UPM ing and testing new technology applications and new methods of generat- 295 ing and fostering innovation processes in real time

SAF D100.1

27 SmartAgriFood

Appendix 3: Selection table for identifying cases according to selected indicators

No. Provider Name Background Focus Sector Filename Grouping of examples Characteristics and Focus Affected groups Future Internet Domains Technology Lessons for system organisation, Use case Focus Functionality Internet function, operation, transparency

cooperation

Future

signalling logistics farm

Future groups component

management

the

scanning

aggregating for for receiving

of the service

management organisation

of businesses consumers policy

target

filtering, service service central

(used)

autonomy

organisation of

of of

and

filtering, bases web technology sending, with

system,

Internet capturing, functionalities

and from

ownership components

to Internet tracing

needs bases needs needs organisation organisation availability system

trade

data

things services

selecting,

system of

web flexibility, Product devices

data

and

organisation connections / design security operation efficiency organisation component, providers data

oriented

Internet

Experience internet

user communication

exchange,

processing, collection, security

hers rming technology

Tracking Literature Project System Semantic Standards/Protocols Internet Other System Expert System Interoperability Flexible Service System Standards Other Information RFID Network Sensors Communication Agents Central Distributed Scanners Signalling Multicasting Broadcasting Others Mobility, Data, Data Data Information Independence Searching, Information System Assuring Information Information Information Communication Others Data Ontologies Use Chain Contribution System Other Agriculture Food Other Study Prototype Operational Comprehensive System Awareness Fa Process IT Future Standards Others Logistics Utilization Others Farms Agricultural Processing Retail Consumers System Ot 1ASI Crop Growth Monitoring Study XXXCrop Growth Monitoring Study 2AST China Internet of Things in Food Z_China_Internet_of_things_in_Food 3ATB AmI@NetFood XXX XSmartAgriFood_various_cases X XXX XX XX XX X X X XXXX X XX 4ATB AMI‐4‐SME XXXXXSmartAgriFood_various_cases X X X XX XXXX XX X X XX XX XXXX X XXX 5ATB E‐Mult XXX XSmartAgriFood_various_cases X X X XXXX X X X XX X 6 ATB IBIS XXXXSmartAgriFood_various_cases X X XX XXXXXXX X XX X X XX XXX X X XX X 7ATB K‐NET XX SmartAgriFood_various_cases XXX X XXXXXXX X X XX X 8 ATB Mobility@forest X XXX XSmartAgriFood_various_cases XX X X XXXX XXX XX X X XX X XXX XX 9ATB P2P XXXXSmartAgriFood_various_cases X XX X X X X XXXXXX X X X 10 ATB WEB‐2‐SME XXXSmartAgriFood_various_cases X X X XX XXXXXX XX X XX X XXX X XX AMI@Netfood: European ICT ‐ Strategic Research Agenda for Agri‐food & Z_Report_AMINetfood Strategic Research 11 ATB X XXX XX XX XX X X X XXXX X XX Rural Development Agenda 12 Atos Origin SOA4ALL XXXXATOS SOA4ALL 13 Atos Origin RATIS & TRACEBACK X X XX XXX XX ATOS TBK‐RATIS 14 CBHU Agritool EUREKA Project XXXXXXEUREKA XXX XXXXX X X X X XXX XX X XX XX X Guidelines for redesigning the supply chain ‐ classification electronic Guidelines for redesigning the supply 15 CBHU XXX XX X XXXX X XX XX XXXXXX X X X identification traceability chain 16 CBHU Milk quota XX XXXX Xmilk quota XX X XXXX X X XXX X XXX X XXXXXX X XXXX X 17 CBHU RFID XX XXX XRFID X X X XXX X X XXXXX XXX X X X XX X 18 CBHU Traceability XXXXXXXtraceability XX XXXX XX X XX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XX X X XXXX 19 CBHU Transparent_Food XXXXXXXTransparent_Food XX XXXXX XX X XX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XX X XXXXXX 20 CBHU Truefood project XXXX XTruefood XX X XXX XXXX X X XXXXX XX XX X XX XXXX 21 CentMa Fundamental limitations of current Internet and the path to Future Internet XX X Internet limitations and path to FI X XXX XXXXXX X XX XXXXXXX X XX X X X XXX 22 CentMa METRO Group ‐ The RFID application spectrum X X XX X XXXX XX METRO_RFID X XXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXX XXXX X XXXX X XXXXXX 23 CentMa FlexSMELL XXXXFlexSMELL X XXXX X XXXX X X XXXX XXXX 24 CentMa LOGSEC ‐ logistics and supply chain security X X XXX LOGSEC_logistics and SC security X X XX XX XXXX X X X XX XX 25 CentMa Why the internet only just works XXXWhy the Internet only just works X XXX XXXX X X XXXXXXX X XX X XX XX X X 26 CentMa Sustainability Information Services for Agri‐Food Supply Networks XXX XXXX XXSustainability Information Services X XX XX X X XX XXXXXX XXX X XX XXXXX 27 CentMa The Internet of Things ‐ Networked objects and smart devices XX XXXXXXXIoT_Networked objects and smart devices X XX X XXXX X X XX XXX XXXX 28 CentMa Ubiquitous ID: Standards for Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of XXXUbiquitous ID X XXX XX XX XXXXXXX XXXX XX X X XXXX Things 29 CentMa Flexible tag datalogger for food logistics XXXXFlexible tag datalogger for food logistics XX X XX X XXXX X X XXX XXXX 30 EHI Beef Labelling Z_Case‐Study‐BeefLabeling 31 EHI Future Store 1 and 2 Z_Case_Future_Store From Crisis Management to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case Study 32 EHI Z_Report_Crisis‐Management of EHI 33 GS1 EANCOM/DESADV XX XX XXXEANCOM_ GS1 Germany X XXXXXX X X XXX XXXXXXX XXXX X X X X X EANCOM project: Electronic order of shipment, transport status, calculation EANCOM_project_Electronic__order_of_sh 34 GS1 XX X X XXX XX XXX XXX XX X XX and payment advice with company FruitLine (logistics service provider) ipment ECR Blue Book: Using Traceability in the Supply Chain to meet Consumer 35 GS1 XXXXXXXXECR‐Blue book GS1 Germany XX X XX XXX X X XXXX X XX X X XX Safety Expectations EPC‐RFID for Fresh Meat Container 36 GS1 EPC/RFID for Fresh Meat Container Logistics X X XXXXX X Logistics Electronic Product Code (EPC) as the means to uniquely identify any object 37 GS1 XXXXXXXEPC_GS1 Germany_2011‐05‐03 X XXXXXX X X XX XXXXXXX XXX X X X in the food supply chain Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) ‐ the standard for 38 GS1 XXXXXXXEPCIS_GS1 Germany_2011‐05‐05 XX X XXXX X XX XX XXXX XX XXXXX X XX XXXX enhancing visibility (i.e., "what", "when", "where" and "why") in supply 39 GS1 Global product classification for fruits and vegetables/dairy XX X XGPC_fruits_vegetables_dairy XXX X XXXX XX XX GS1 Guideline "specialties in the logistic of prepacked meat and meat GS1 Guideline for prepacked meat & meat 40 GS1 XX X X X X XXXXXXXX X XXXXXX XXXX XX products" products_GS1 Germany GS1 PROZEUS Practice Project "From Stable to Table ‐ Transparency in the GS1 PROZEUS Fleischtransparenz_GS1 41 GS1 X XX X XXXX XX X X X XXXXX X XX XXX XXX X XX Process Chain of Pork" Germany 42 GS1 GS1 DataBar Implementation Case Study (Feile Foods) X X XXXXX XGS1 Traceability case study Feile Food X XXX X XXXXXX XXXX 43 GS1 GS1 XML Messages XX XX X XGS1 XML Messages GS1 Germany X XXXXXX X X XXX XXXXXXX XXXX X X X X X 44 GS1 GS1 Application Identifier System and GS1 Data Carriers XX XX X XGS1_AI_System and Data Carrier XX XXXXX XXXXXX X XXXXXX XX X X X X X X 45 GS1 Global Traceability Standard XX X XXXXX XX X GTC_GS1 Germany X X XX X XXX X XXXX X XX X X X X XX 46 GS1 New recommendation for the logistic specific features of the dairy products XX X X Logistic_dairy_products_GS1 XXX XX X XX X XXX XXX XX Object Name Service (ONS) and Federated ONS ‐ the key stone of the future 47 GS1 XXXXXXXXONS_GS1 Germany_2011‐05‐11 X XX XXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXX XXX X XX XXX X XX B2C architecture and internet of goods/things 48 GS1 Urban Retail Logistics XX X XProject Urbane Retail Logistik XX X XXXX X XX X XXXX X X XX XXXX 49 GS1 Recall service and standard XX X X X X X Recall service and standard GS1 Germany X X X X XX XX X XXXX X XXXX X XX X

SAF D100.1

28 SmartAgriFood

Supply Chain Event Management ‐ an approach for smart(er) logistics in the 50 GS1 XXXXXXXXSCEM_GS1 Germany_2011‐05‐05 X XX X XX X X XX X XXX XX X X X XXXXX XX XXX food supply chain Traceability Case Study Rasting_GS1 51 GS1 Traceability Case Study Rasting XXXXXX X X X X XXXXX X XX XXX XXX X XX Germany 52 HWDU Literature on infrared animal screening XXXXLiterature_infrared_animal XX XXXX X X XX X X X X screening HWDU 53 HWDU EU FP7 SENSEI Project XXXXSENSEI_Project_EU_HWDU XX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XX XX XXX 54 HWDU EU FP7 SOCRATES Project XXXXSocrates_Project_EU_HWDU XX XXX XX XXX X XX 55 HWDU EU FP7 WATER‐BEE Project XXXXWater_Bee_Project_EU_HWDU XX X X XXXX XX XX XX X X 56 JD agriXchange project ‐ network for data exchange in agriculture X X XXXX XX X Agrixchange 3 57 JD ICT‐AGRI project X X XXXX XX X ICT Agri 3 58 JD iGreen project (John Deere) X X XXXX XX X iGreen_3 59 JD ICT‐AGRI Country Report: Reports on the organisation of research Z_Report_ICT‐Agri‐country_report programmes and research institutes in 15 European countries agroXML ‐ standard for data exchange for farm management information 60 KTBL XXXXagroXML X X XXX XXX XXXX XXXX X X XXX systems 61 KTBL iGreen project (KTBL) XXXXXXXiGreen‐KTBL XX X XXXXXXXXXXXX X XX XXX X XXXX 62 KTBL ISOagriNet data exchange standard for livestock farming XXXXISOagriNET XX XX X XXX X X XX XXX XXXX Data Exchange Automation for the Integrated Administration and Control 63 KTBL XXXXJACS XX X X X X XX X XXX X XX System of the EU 64 KTBL Transparent_Food2 XXXXXtransparentfood_2 X XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX X X XX 65 LEI‐WUR Program on precision agriculture (PPL) X X XXXXX X PPL 66 LEI‐WUR Digital Horticulture X XXXXXXX X DigitalHorticulture 67 LEI‐WUR agriXchange XX X X XXXXX X agriXchange 68 LEI‐WUR Agri‐Food Living Labs X X XXXXX X Agri‐Food Living Lab 69 MTT Assisted compliance with standards (Smart Farming) XXXXXMTT Assisted compliance 70 MTT Information flows and Future FMIS XXXXXMTT Info Flows and FMIS 71 NKUA Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) XX XX Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) X XXX XXX XX XX XXX XXXX X XXXXXX Farm Management Information System 72 NKUA Farm Management Information System (FMIS) XXXXXXXX X XXX XXXX X XX XX XXX XXXX XXXXX (FMIS) 73 NKUA Information Fusion XXXXInformation Fusion XX XXX XX XXXXX XX X XX X 74 NKUA Risks in Agriculture/AgInsurance XXXXXRisks in Agriculture XXXXXXXXX X 75 NKUA Smart Farming XXXXXSmart Farming X XXX XX XXXXX XX XX 76 NKUA Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) Aspects XXXXWSN Aspects XXXXXXXXXXXX X 77 SGS Agriberia XX XXAgriberia XX X XXX X 78 SGS Agricultural Market Information Virtual Library XXX X Agricultural Market Information XX XX X XXX X X 79 SGS Monitoring Agriculture with Remote Sensing (MARS Project ‐ EC) XXX X XX Agriculture monitoring X XX XXX X XXXX XX X XX X XXX 80 SGS Eco‐farming/Agroecology: A sustainable way to improve crop yields XXXAgroecology‐Ecofarming XXXXX XXXXXX X BS EN 16001 Energy Efficiency Standard 81 SGS BS EN 16001 Energy Efficiency Standard XXX X XX X XXXXX XXXXXXX X _SGS Environmental Standards in the Agri‐Food sector: The National Agri‐ Environmental Standards for Agri‐food 82 SGS XXX X XX XXXXX XXXXXXX X Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI) sector 83 SGS European Food Information Resource (EuroFIR) Project XX XEuroFIR XXXX X X XXXX XXX X 84 SGS FoodTracE Project XXXXXX XFoodTracE X X XX XXXXX XXXXX XX X X X XXX 85 SGS The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) XX X X X GFSI _Global Food Safety Initiative X XXXXXXXXX XXX XX XXXX X 86 SGS IFS and BRC Certification Bodies XXXIFS&BRC Certification Bodies XXXXXX X XXXX X X X X 87 SGS Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture (JITAg) XX XX Information Technology in Agriculture XXXXX XXXXX X ISO 22000 Food Safety Management 88 SGS ISO 22000 Food Safety Management Systems Certification XXX X XX X X XXX XX X X XXXX X XX Systems Certification 89 SGS ISO 28000 Supply Chain Security Standard XXX X XX X ISO 28000 Supply Chain Security Standard X XXX XX X X XXXX X XX 90 SGS Legislation Europe XX XLegislation _Europe XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X 91 SGS Legislation Spain XX XLegislation _Spain 92 SGS ONE TRACE SYSTEM Egypt XXXXXX XONE TRACE SYSTEM _GS1 Egypt XXX XXXXXXX XXX 93 SGS Open Innovation in the Agri‐Food Sector X X XXXX XX Open Innovation XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX 94 SGS Organic Waste Reuse for Urban Agriculture XXXXOrganic Waste Reuse for Urban Agriculture 95 SGS Patents and trademarks information XX XX Patents and trademarks information X X XX XX XXX X X XXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXX XX 96 SGS Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) XXX XRASFF X XXXX X X X XXX XXX X XXX RFID Application in Logistics and Supply 97 SGS RFID Application in Logistics and Supply Chain Management XXXXXX X XXXX XXX XX XXXXX Chain Management 98 SGS Traceability from "farm to fork" using RFID technology XXXXXRFID From farm to fork system TAPA FSR Transport Security Certification 99 SGS TAPA FSR Transport Security Certification XXX X XX X XXX XX X XXXXX XX _SGS Technological Watch Standard _UNE 166006 100 SGS Technological Watch System in Agri‐food sector X X XX XX XXX XX XXXXX X XX 2006 101 SGS Characteristics of Traceability Systems XXXXXX XTraceability systems XXXXX X XXXXXXX XX 102 SGS Waste Management XXX XX X Waste Management Product Quality Specifications that can be used in the logistics process to 103 TNO XXXXXTNO Product Quality Specifications keep track of quality parameters of products being shipped Chain Information Systems that can be used in the logistics process to 104 TNO XXXXTNO‐Chain Information Systems maintain and provide product quality information through the entire chain 105 UPM C@R‐D1.1: Service architectures for rural areas XXUPM‐C@R‐D1.1 106 UPM C@R‐D1.1B: Service architectures for rural areas XXUPM‐C@R‐D1.1B 107 UPM C@R‐D1.2: Components interfaces for service components of rural services XXUPM‐C@R‐D1.2 108 UPM C@R‐D2.1: Services Oriented Architectures for rural services XXUPM‐C@R‐D2.1 109 UPM C@R‐D2.2: Services and service components for rural Living Labs XXUPM‐C@R‐D2.2 C@R‐D3.1: Methodologies for user involvement for discovering, prototyping 110 UPM and testing new technology applications and new methods of generating XXUPM‐C@R‐D3.1 and fostering innovation processes in real time

SAF D100.1

29 SmartAgriFood

Appendix

Appendix 4: Documentation of cases

(The cases are accessible through the internet. This appendix is only provided upon request in printed form with about 350 pages of printout or in electronic form with about 15 MB of storage capacity)

SAF D100.1

30 SmartAgriFood

Table of content Appendix 4: Case contributions

No. Provider Title of Contribution Page

1 SGS Agriberia 35

2 SGS Agricultural Market Information Virtual Library 37

3 SGS Monitoring Agriculture with Remote Sensing (MARS Project - EC) 42

4 LEI-WUR Agri-Food Living Labs 45

5 JD agriXchange project - network for data exchange in agriculture 48

6 LEI-WUR agriXchange 50

7 SGS Eco-farming/Agroecology: A sustainable way to improve crop yields 52

agroXML - standard for data exchange for farm management information 8 KTBL 55 systems

9 ATOS SOA4ALL 58

10 ATOS RATIS & TRACEBACK 60

11 SGS BS EN 16001 Energy Efficiency Standard 62

12 ASI Crop Growth Monitoring Study 64

13 CentMa CuteLoop 68

14 LEI-WUR Digital Horticulture 70

15 GS1 EANCOM/DESADV 73

EANCOM project: Electronic order of shipment, transport status, calculation 16 GS1 82 and payment advice with company FruitLine (logistics service provider) ECR Blue Book: Using Traceability in the Supply Chain to meet Consumer 17 GS1 84 Safety Expectations

18 NKUA Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 86

Environmental Standards in the Agri-Food sector: The National Agri- 19 SGS 90 Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI) Electronic Product Code (EPC) as the means to uniquely identify any object 20 GS1 94 in the food supply chain Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) - the standard for 21 GS1 enhancing visibility (i.e., "what", "when", "where" and "why") in supply 97 chains

22 GS1 EPC/RFID for Fresh Meat Container Logistics 100

23 CBHU Agritool EUREKA Project 102

24 SGS European Food Information Resource (EuroFIR) Project 104

25 NKUA Farm Management Information System (FMIS) 106

26 CentMa Flexible tag datalogger for food logistics 109

27 CentMa FlexSMELL 111

SAF D100.1

31 SmartAgriFood

28 SGS FoodTracE Project 112

29 SGS The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) 117

30 GS1 Global product classification for fruits and vegetables/dairy 121

GS1 Guideline "specialties in the logistic of prepacked meat and meat 31 GS1 123 products" GS1 PROZEUS Practice Project "From Stable to Table - Transparency in 32 GS1 124 the Process Chain of Pork"

33 GS1 GS1 DataBar Implementation Case Study (Feile Foods) 126

34 GS1 GS1 XML Messages 128

35 GS1 GS1 Application Identifier System and GS1 Data Carriers 130

36 GS1 Global Traceability Standard 136

Guidelines for redesigning the supply chain - classification electronic identi- 37 CBHU 138 fication traceability

38 JD ICT-AGRI project 140

39 SGS IFS and BRC Certification Bodies 142

40 JD iGreen project (John Deere) 144

41 KTBL iGreen project (KTBL) 146

42 NKUA Information Fusion 148

43 SGS Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture (JITAg) 151

44 CentMa Fundamental limitations of current Internet and the path to Future Internet 154

45 CentMa The Internet of Things - Networked objects and smart devices 156

46 SGS ISO 22000 Food Safety Management Systems Certification 158

47 SGS ISO 28000 Supply Chain Security Standard 161

48 KTBL ISOagriNet data exchange standard for livestock farming 163

Data Exchange Automation for the Integrated Administration and Control 49 KTBL 165 System of the EU

50 SGS Legislation Europe 167

51 SGS Legislation Spain 169

52 HWDU Literature on infrared animal screening 170

53 GS1 New recommendation for the logistic specific features of the dairy products 172

54 CentMa LOGSEC - logistics and supply chain security 174

55 CentMa METRO Group - The RFID application spectrum 176

56 CBHU Milk quota 178

57 MTT Assisted compliance with standards (Smart Farming) 180

SAF D100.1

32 SmartAgriFood

58 MTT Information flows and Future FMIS 182

59 SGS ONE TRACE SYSTEM Egypt 184

Object Name Service (ONS) and Federated ONS - the key stone of the 60 GS1 189 future B2C architecture and internet of goods/things

61 SGS Open Innovation in the Agri-Food Sector 192

62 SGS Organic Waste Reuse for Urban Agriculture 195

63 SGS Patents and trademarks information 201

64 LEI-WUR Program on precision agriculture (PPL) 206

65 GS1 Urban Retail Logistics 208

66 SGS Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) 210

67 GS1 Recall service and standard 212

68 SGS RFID Application in Logistics and Supply Chain Management 215

69 SGS Traceability from "farm to fork" using RFID technology 220

70 CBHU RFID 225

71 NKUA Risks in Agriculture/AgInsurance 227

Supply Chain Event Management - an approach for smart(er) logistics in 72 GS1 230 the food supply chain

73 HWDU EU FP7 SENSEI Project 232

74 NKUA Smart Farming 234

75 ATB AmI@NetFood 237

76 ATB AMI-4-SME 239

77 ATB E-Mult 241

78 ATB IBIS 243

79 ATB K-NET 245

80 ATB Mobility@forest 247

81 ATB P2P 249

82 ATB WEB-2-SME 251

83 HWDU EU FP7 SOCRATES Project 253

84 CentMa Sustainability Information Services for Agri-Food Supply Networks 255

85 SGS TAPA FSR Transport Security Certification 257

86 SGS Technological Watch System in Agri-food sector 260

Product Quality Specifications that can be used in the logistics process to 87 TNO 265 keep track of quality parameters of products being shipped

88 TNO Chain Information Systems that can be used in the logistics process to 267

SAF D100.1

33 SmartAgriFood

maintain and provide product quality information through the entire chain from grower to retailer

89 GS1 Traceability Case Study Rasting 269

90 SGS Characteristics of Traceability Systems 271

91 CBHU Traceability 277

92 CBHU Transparent_Food 279

93 KTBL Transparent_Food2 281

94 CBHU Truefood project 284

Ubiquitous ID: Standards for Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of 95 CentMa 286 Things

96 UPM [email protected]: Service architectures for rural areas 288

97 UPM [email protected]: Service architectures for rural areas 290

[email protected]: Components interfaces for service components of rural ser- 98 UPM 291 vices

99 UPM [email protected]: Services Oriented Architectures for rural services 292

100 UPM [email protected]: Services and service components for rural Living Labs 294

102 SGS Waste Management 296

103 HWDU EU FP7 WATER-BEE Project 301

104 CentMa Why the internet only just works 303

105 NKUA Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) Aspects 305

106 EHI Future Store 1 and 2 310

107 EHI Beef Labelling 311

108 AST China Internet of Things in Food 314

AMI@Netfood: European ICT - Strategic Research Agenda for Agri-food & 109 ATB 315 Rural Development From Crisis Management to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Case 110 EHI 343 Study of EHI ICT-AGRI Country Report: Reports on the organisation of research pro- 111 JD grammes and research institutes in 15 European countries (this report encompasses about 350 pages and is available separately)

SAF D100.1

34 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e‐mail: Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the competence domains the __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, information does focus storage, communication etc. of information) on; multiple marks possible) Sector __ Agriculture and Food: agrarian information

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project AGRIBERIA name and web site, etc.) www.agriberia.com/front/quienessomos.php?idCategoria=3&iNivel=6

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance It provides a tool to get information and comunicate (by a forum)in many aspects in connection with the food and agriculture sector in Spain: ‐ Meteorology ‐ Rules/Regulations/Legislation ‐ Subsidies (¿subventions?) ‐ Economy ‐ Guarantee of origin ‐ Food quality

But also links to others interests websites: ‐ Analysis centers ‐ Clean and disinfection ‐ Suppliers and equipment ‐ Food and agriculture statistical database ‐ Press ‐ National and international official organisms ‐ Educational centers ‐ Consultancies ‐ Etc... ‐ Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider It should be important to develop the sustainable aspect:

35 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa in developing our own ‐ How to recycle concept, the conclusion ‐ Environment sensitization (?) of the literature source ‐ New tecnologies to save energy or the project results) ‐ Raise social awareness about the worker’s conditions and rights ‐ Reuse raw material between companies depending to their needs. Further information: Optional

36 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Internet sources on Agricultural Market Information

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Agricultural Market Information Virtual Library: Literature http://www.aec.msu.edu/fs2/market/reports_prices.htm source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance This website section covers all sites which offer market data and information from daily closing prices to weekly, monthly and yearly market reports. They differ by the information, data‐banks and reports provided at each Internet site, by their sources of information, by the regions covered or by commodities. This Market Reports sub‐section has five areas: (1) USDA market wire service, agricultural marketing service, and economics and statistics system, (2) international and world markets, (3) Africa, (4) within the United States of America, and (5) specific commodities such as grains (including rice), soybeans, fruits and vegetables, hogs, cattle and livestock (including forages), seafood, cotton, nuts and fertilizer market information.

37 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

1. USDA Market Wire Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, and Economics and Statistics System The USDA AMS Market News Service. For current U.S. price and sales information. One of the best sources for daily to weekly reports for all kinds of commodity prices, bids, imports and exports in the U.S., from dairy, feedstuffs, fruit and vegetables, futures, grains, hay, livestock, meat, poultry, tobacco. Reports cover both domestic and international markets. Other reports include information on volume, quality, condition, and other market data on farm products in specific markets and marketing areas. You can reach them at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/marketnews.htm USDA reports and Ag. Market Information ‐ The complete set of reports. Updated daily. This information for grain and other commodities is organized by state and nationally by the University of Nebraska‐Lincoln's Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources' web site at: http://ianrwww.unl.edu/markets/ The Mann Library has set up historic data series, and indexes on U.S. prices received by commodity. Published by N.A.S.S., the indexes of prices received by farmers includes monthly and annual prices, most for 1908‐92. Click on the Connect button. To obtain market information reports and data‐sets from the Economic Research Service (ERS), the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and the World Agriculture Outlook Board (WAOB), go to: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/usda.html This site includes more than 140 agricultural data‐sets, most in spreadsheet format. You can find data on subjects such as worldwide textile fiber production, farm production expenses, European Community wheat supply, milk and dairy product sales, food spending in American households, U.S. meat supply and consumption, fertilizer use, ozone records for the Northeast, and so on. The site also includes more than 100 report series. Searching the system, you can find reports about U.S. agricultural income and finance, farm production expenses, dairy production, industrial uses of agricultural materials, agricultural trade update, livestock inventory, and also world agricultural supply and demand estimates and outlook reports. Looking at wheat for example, monthly update and outlook reports can be found on supply, disappearance, tariffs, quotas, area, price, stocks, inspections, trade and cash prices for leading classes of wheat at U.S. markets. Many annual reports are also available. For those interested in world agricultural supply and demand estimates, full‐text monthly reports provide the most current USDA forecasts of U.S. and world supply‐use balances of major grains, soybeans and products, cotton, and much more. All of these reports may also be emailed directly to you free of charge. Another good web site is the Market Information System (MIS) developed by the University of Florida. It provides agricultural market information received from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). It covers many commodities such as grain, and data is given by city. You may find their site at: http://gnv.ifas.ufl.edu/~marketing/market.html

2. International and World Markets The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) offers regularly many current commodity analysis reports on world markets and trade for different commodities such as grains and tropical fruit. The site is worth visiting from time to time to see what is newly available. It may be found at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/commodity.html You may also search through their market research page, where you can find country reports prepared by FAS attaches covering nearly 130 countries (see attache reports). You may also look through their "Trade Leads" section reported daily, and read their food market overviews which provide valuable information about some of the United States' most important export markets. Another interesting tool at the FAS web site is the U.S. import and export statistics for bulk, intermediate and consumer‐oriented foods and beverages (BICO). You may search by specific commodity or by country. Their web page can be found at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/ustrade/ The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has also a very good web

38 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

site. Available through the site are many great features and related information sources. For example, follow their Global Watch series of pages, and in one you will find global information on early warning systems for sub‐Saharan Africa: food outlook, food shortages, food crops and supplies, crop prospects and situations, as well as Sahel weather and special alerts. Also, world food outlook reports on cereals come out every two months. Be sure to look up their web pages on the World Food Summit held in Rome in November 1996. Another great web page at the FAO site is the FAOSTAT Agriculture Statistics Database which contains time‐series data (starting from 1961) for over 210 countries and 1500 items on the production and trade of primary and derived crops and livestock products; agricultural machinery; fertilizer, pesticides and insecticides (trade only); land use, population and food aid. For example, if you wanted to compare FAO statistics for wheat production over the last five years between the U.S., Canada, Argentina and Australia, you can simply request this information from their database and within a minute(s), the application gives the comparison between production, area harvested, yield, and so on, of those countries in the order selected. You can then download a copy in worksheet form! Finally, among other related sources and links, the FAO has started setting up web pages on agricultural marketing, food outlook and yearly commodity market reviews. The Agricultural Support Systems Division of FAO (AGS) carries out work in agricultural marketing, agricultural machinery, tools and equipment, agricultural processing, farming systems and farm management, post‐harvest management and rural finance. For example, they helped set up the web site on market information in Zambia. In the food outlook section you will find quarterly information on the world cereal situation, supply and demand, current production and prospects, trade, carryover stock, fertilizer data, export prices and freight weights. And in the commodity market review section, you can access economic data from the past few years with reasons for the variations and changes as well as some forecasting. These web pages cover many commodities such as beverages, sugar, bananas and citrus, cereals and cassava, oilseeds, oils and oilmeals, livestock and milk products, agricultural raw materials such as for cotton, fishery products and forestry products.  The FAO homepage can be reached at: http://www.fao.org/  For the page on agricultural marketing go to: http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/ags/agsm/marketin.htm English, French and Spanish available.  For the FAOSTAT database and producer prices, go to: http://apps.fao.org/  For the 1999‐2000 Commodity Market Review, the URL is: http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/economic/esc/comtrade.htm  The people at the Commodities and Trade Division have set up a wonderful web page to get weekly prices (and monthly and yearly averages) of most major export commodities ‐ from 1989 to 2000. Highly recommended! Go to: http://apps2.fao.org/ciwpsystem/ciwp_q‐e.htm  For the GIEWS quarterly food outlook web pages, the URL is: http://www.fao.org/giews/english/fo/fotoc.htm  In addition, all the GIEWS publications, including Foodcrops and Shortages, Food supply situation and crop prospects in sub‐Saharan Africa, the Sahel weather and crop situation and Special Reports and Alerts are available at: http://www.fao.org/giews/english/giewse.htm  The last three sites can be found starting with the FAO's Economic and Social Department at: http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/  For the Global Watch archive web pages go to: http://www.fao.org/news/global/glolib‐ e.htm  And for the World Food Summit web pages, go to: http://www.fao.org/wfs/homepage.htm

Statistics: The FAO's Agricultural Statistics Information Links (ASIL) web page.

39 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Pink Sheet. The World Bank offers some commodity price data in their data, analysis and forecasts section http://www.worldbank.org/prospects/pinksheets/ Also from the World Bank, the Global Commodity Markets section provides coverage of major primary commodities, including price forecasts, regional price indices, transportation costs, and access to the World Bank's Macroeconomic Outlook.The link is: http://www.worldbank.org/prospects/gcmonline/index.htm

6. Europe  U.K. Commercial: o Farming On‐line are based in the UK and are a subscriber service for 2500 high end U.K farmers, they have direct feeds to Dow Jones for up‐to‐date commodity news, plus a joint venture with the UK's National Farmers Union to make them a leading supplier of UK on‐line agricultural information. Try their free trial service. o The Home Growers Cereal Authority Market Information (HGCA MI) web site is quite interesting, although commercial and you need to subscribe, some pages of their weekly bulletins are free. They promote a variety of publications but you will find some pdf files available on weekly prices, trade statistics, and daily reports for the UK, EU and world grain markets, simply click on the tabs on the right side of the home page.  U.K. Free market information: o Gerson ‐ UK grain traders, market reports and prices. o Dotfarming ‐ Daily prices for grain, oilseeds, potatoes, cattle and sheep (registration needed, is free). o BDR Agriculture ‐ Daily grain market report.  France Statistiques agroalimentaires, prix et donn�es du Minist�re d'Agriculture.  Germany For Deutschen Agrarinformationsnetz, go to DAINET's web site.  Poland You can get weekly prices for wheat, rye, barley, potatoes, piglets, eggs, apples and onions, milk and milk products. Information on commodity exchanges is also available in Polish, and twice a week, they publish wholesale prices of fruit and vegetables. Available from the Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Food Economy Department of Information  Moldova and some major markets from Russia, Ukraine and Romania Many good to links to market related business information in the area and of particular interest are the weekly retail and wholesale price information for fruits, vegetables, livestock and more, ‐ in Italian and English. See CAMIB  The Lithuanian Agricultural International Trade Agency has set up a web site on market information for Lithuania. Although most of the web site and all publications are in Lithuanian, some pages are available in English. Published every three weeks, their publications cover dairy, meat and grain sectors. Look for the Rinkos informacija page to find market information. For publications, go to Leidiniai internete. They also offer a link to Food‐fair.com, a virtual trade fair where companies can put up information about themselves, their products and contact information. Similar to the fair above, a subdivision of the virtual trade fair is dedicated to the Baltic Region Baltic.food‐fair.com  Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Chuvashia and the Kyrgyzskoy Republic. o Many resources are available from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Russian Federation. Available in English is the Ukrainian agrimarket weekly report. Click here for this report. On the Russian home page just below the date, click on the first word just below on the left to Ceneinformation. It will bring you to a page with price information on various sources such as Information from the inter‐republican universal commodity exchange in Moscow where prices of metals, oil, and foodstuffs on the international

40 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

exchanges are available. Plus, prices, outlook reports and more are available for the Kyrgyzskoy Republic with prices of basic food goods for markets in provincial centers and for Bishkeka; for Chuvashia and for Uzbekistan. Further market related information is available from the Ministry's web site: such as fertilizer and machinery prices, statistics on agricultural production, databases, economic and statistical indices, grain production, milk yields and production (weekly), statistical information on the regions of Russia, economic news of countries of the CIS, and information on inputs, hay/fodder, harvests, and mechanization. o Only in Russian, you can get the state of food markets information bulletin (every two weeks) for the various regions in the Russian Federation here. In it you will find retail prices for meats, poultry, oils, milk and cheese, bread, flour, sugar, and various fruits and vegetables. Selling prices at the wholesale level are also available for the same commodities. Producer prices are also given for the regions on several grains, oilseeds, sugar, fruits and vegetables, pigs and more.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; It will be interesting to join all those agricultural data base information websites on a what we same web platform, like a virtual library of agricultural data base websites clasified by should sector, countries and subjects. Those websites contain a huge agricultural database consider in information sources. developing our own To know how is the state of the agricultural market and his evolution can help companies concept, the not to overproduct for example or to know in what sector they should invaste etc… conclusion of the literature source or the project results)

Further Optional information:

41 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Agriculture Monitoring

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Monitoring Agriculture with Remote Sensing (MARS Project – EC): Literature http://mars.jrc.ec.europa.eu/mars/About‐us source, http://www.marsop.info/marsop3/ project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance Mission To provide scientific and technical support on EU Agriculture and Food Security policies. ‐ In Europe, the Unit addresses key issues related to the management and control of the Common Agriculture Policy: Independent crop yield forecasts, agricultural insurances, standard control methods of area based subsidies, compliance with environment, and effect of climate change. It supports EU projects related to Land Administration, the enlargement process, and the GMES Space Component. ‐ In developing countries, assistance is given to the EU Food Security Thematic Program with

42 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

special emphasis on Africa, and to providing building blocks for an European capacity for Global Agriculture Monitoring. The activities of the Unit are based on expertise in agro‐ meteorological crop modelling, sampling methods, econometric, geomatics (GIS, GPS and ICT), and satellite & airborne remote‐ sensing (the Unit manages the EC Framework Contracts for the provision of Satellite Remote Sensing data and manages the access/dissemination of EU image data archives).

History The MARS project, started in 1988, was initially designed to apply emerging space technologies for providing independent and timely information on crop areas and yields. Since 1993, driven by user requirements, the team has contributed towards a more effective and efficient management of the Common Agricultural Policy through the provision of a broader range of technical support services to DG Agriculture and Member‐State Administrations. Since 2000, the expertise in crop yields has been applied outside the EU. Services have been developed to support EU aid and assistance policies and provide building blocks for a European capability for global agricultural monitoring and food security assessment. Today, the Monitoring Agricultural ResourceS Unit is made up of four Actions: GeoCAP (ex‐ MARS PAC), AGRI4CAST (ex‐MARS STAT), FOODSEC and CID

AGRI4CAST The AGRI4CAST action is centred on the JRC's crop yield forecasting system aiming at providing accurate and timely crop yield forecasts and crop production biomass for the union territory and other strategic areas of the world. The rationale behind the crop forecasts at EU level is based on the lack of timely information to take rapid decision on CAP instruments during the year.

AGRI4CAST has been developing and operationally running a Crop Forecasting System since 1992 in order to provide timely crop production forecasts at European level. This system is able to monitor crop vegetation growth (cereal, oil seed crops, protein crops, sugar beet, potatoes, pastures, rice) and include the short‐term effects of meteorological events on crop productions and to provide yearly yield forecasts on European crops.

The AGRI4CAST system, also known as the MARS Crop Yield Forecasting System, is made by remote sensing and meteorological observations, agro‐meteorological modelling (Crop Growth Monitoring System (CGMS), MARS Model Library) and statistical analysis tools.

FOODSEC Food Security in the poorer countries of the world is a main concern for European Citizens as reflected by the leading role of the European Union in the international donor community with a yearly contribution of 500MEuro. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 815 million people worldwide are chronically food‐insecure, while a further 5‐10% of the population is at risk of "acute" food insecurity by natural and man‐made crises.

The FOODSEC action has developed since 2001, in cooperation with the AGRI4CAST action and in the framework of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) initiative, a system for regional monitoring and forecasting in various parts of the world. During an initial phase (2001 ‐ 2004), the following four pilot areas were covered: Russia and the New Independent States, the Mediterranean Basin, Eastern Africa and South America (MERCOSUR countries plus Bolivia). Since 2005 the system has been extended to food insecure areas worldwide.

43 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very The MARS project provides timely agricultural production projections for the current important; season, at the regional level and at higher levels. The European Commission needs this what we information to implement its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its Food Aid and should Food Security Policy. To compute the projections, Alterra has set up a system to monitor consider in developing and estimate harvest forecasts for various parts of the world. The Joint Research Centre our own (JRC) of the European Commission in Ispra (Italy) is developing this system further, in an concept, the effort that fits into the framework of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security conclusion (GMES) initiative. of the literature Immediate users of the projections are the European Directorate General for Agriculture source or and Rural Development and the EuropeAid Office. The MARS project also has links with the project results) the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and national research organisations, such as in China. Expertise gained in the project is being applied in other research initiatives as well, for example, to assess the impact of sustainable development policies and to investigate the effects of climate change on land and water use in regional scenario studies.

In recent years, information generated by the project has influenced decisions on cereals imports and exports at the EU level and implementation of the CAP in general. The regularly issued crop bulletins and website have become a vital information source for the media and the public, especially when extreme weather events occur.

The expertise hereby gained integrates a number of research areas and techniques:

 Statistical methods for calibration and forecasting

 GIS and database management

 Web‐based information technology

 Agro‐meteorological models (crop growth / yield)

 Standardisation and quality control

Further Optional information:

44 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sjaak Wolfert e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: LEI - WUR

Background __ Literature _ Project _x_ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the --- Expert experience, specify who: information is based on) --- Other, specify:______

Focus (please mark the x__ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) x__ Information organization for farm cooperation x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) x__ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) x__ Process organization (production, distribution processes) x__ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector x__ Agriculture, specify product: arable farming______Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. www.agrifoodlivinglab.nl Literature source, project Wolfert, J., Kruize, J.W., Verdouw, C.N., Beulens, A.J.M., 2011. Agri-Food name and web site, etc.) Living Lab: the virtual meeting place for open innovation on farm information management and ICT development. In: Gardner, J., Shadbolt, N. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th International Farm Management Association Congress. IFMA, Methven, pp. 496-504. Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The Agri-Food Living Lab is basically a community of practice, where the open innovation process plays a central role. Agri-food business and government are often the parties who bring in practical problems (e.g. in land registration, plant protection, precision fertilizer application, etc.). Research and education bring in knowledge and models that are related to these problems. ICT business and consultants bring in existing business solutions. The open innovation process continuously generates new (partial) solutions and knowledge which is publicly available. These innovations can be constantly reused within the open innovation process. An important side-effect is that these (partial) solutions and knowledge can be picked up by others and be used for a different

45 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

problem than intended (serendipity). Likewise, all parties are free to share solutions or to keep them for themselves to serve as a base for commercial products or services. In that way, there is always an interaction between the competitive and open space and the players themselves decide in which space they develop. Because the open space is also a place for contacts with (potential) customers, it is expected that this is „a-place-to-be‟ for vendors. Hence, it is expected that the open space is potentially a self-enhancing mechanism. Although the agri-food LL is basically a Community of Practice, it is made tangible by a web portal. The main components of this web portal are: use cases discussion forum webservices catalogue reference information models Besides, other common features are included such as blogs, news, events, interesting links, etc. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider Based on the experiences so far and other experiences derived from in developing our own literature, some preliminary discussion points can be derived: concept, the conclusion of the literature source Advantages or the project results) sharing of initial investment costs and risks. In this way it is ensured that a collective step forward is made. On this basis, individual (commercial) developments and implementations on each other’s core business areas are made possible. presence of a potentially large critical mass. Basically, anyone can participate so it is more likely that there is always someone who has a solution for a specific problem or who has a good idea. much room for creativity. The case studies and discussions are open and the potential building blocks (web services) are readily available to be explored in applications and services. higher chance of acceptance. The user is involved from the beginning of the development and components are developed and tested in a real-life situation.

Possible disadvantages: voluntary participation. This raises the question whether there is sufficient critical mass to make cases successful. This can be overcome by embedding existing projects as much as possible. Additionally, connections can be made with similar portals worldwide, which can increase the numbers of participants dramatically. performance and quality are not guaranteed. Contrary to a project, in the Living Lab there are no obligations for results. However, the web services are important end results and once they are commercially interesting enough, the assumption is that quality is guaranteed through common feedback mechanisms (cf. apps in an appstore). The Living Lab can also be seen as independent platform in which the community discusses or rates the quality of

46 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa the results. For web services and standards in which no direct commercial interest is at stake, but which are crucial for other applications, it could be investigated if standardization authorities can play a role. consistency between cases and related webservices is not secured. In practice, this can still lead to poor integration of different applications. Partly, this phenomenon will be prevented because users play a significant role in the development. Additionally, research institutes will work on a cohesive architecture in the form of reference information models.

Further information: Optional

47 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, 20.May.2011 Responsible: John Deere

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Nicole Huether e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: John Deere

Background __ Literature x Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the x Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus x Information needs of policy on; multiple marks x Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) x Information organization for farm cooperation x Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) x IT Technology components x Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: plant production __ Food, specify product: ______

Source agriXchange project – network for data exchange in agriculture. John (where to find; e.g. Deere is a member on the advisory board. More information can be Literature source, project found on the official web side: http://agrixchange.org/ name and web site, etc.) Content with project Within the knowledge-based bio-economy, information sharing is an relevance important issue. In agri-food business, this is a complex issue because many aspects and dimensions play a role. An installed base of

information systems lacks standardization, which hampers efficient

exchange of information. This leads to inefficient business processes

and hampers adoption of new knowledge and technology. Especially,

the exchange of information at whole chain or network level is poorly

organized. Although arable and livestock farming have their own

specific needs, there are many similarities in the need for an

integrated approach. Spatial data increasingly play an important role

in agriculture.

48 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, 20.May.2011 Responsible: John Deere

Lessons learned for The EU project AgriXchange is a coordination and support action to project (very important; setup a network for common data exchange in the agricultural sector. what we should consider The network includes local standards such as the German AgroXML in developing our own and the Dutch AgroConnect, as well as international standardization concept, the conclusion bodies in particular UN‐CEFACT. of the literature source or the project results)

Further information: Optional offen lassen

49 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sjaak Wolfert e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: LEI - WUR

Background __ Literature x Project _x_ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the --- Expert experience, specify who: information is based on) --- Other, specify:______

Focus (please mark the x__ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus x__ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) x__ Information organization for farm cooperation x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) x__ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) x__ Process organization (production, distribution processes) x__ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector x__ Agriculture, specify product: crop and animal production __ Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. www.agriXchange.eu Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Within the knowledge-based bio-economy, information sharing is an important issue. In agri-food business, this is a complex issue because many aspects and dimensions play a role. An installed base of information systems lack standardization, which hampers efficient exchange of information. This leads to inefficient business processes and hampers adoption of new knowledge and technology. Especially, the exchange of information at whole chain or network level is poorly organized. Although arable and livestock farming have their own specific needs, there are many similarities in the need for an integrated approach. Spatial data increasingly plays an important role in agriculture. The overall objective of this project is to coordinate and support the setting up of sustainable network for developing a system for common data exchange in agriculture. This will be achieved by:

50 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

establishing a platform on data exchange in agriculture in the EU; developing a reference framework for interoperability of data exchange; identifying the main challenges for harmonizing data exchange.

First, an in-depth analysis and investigation of the state-of-the art in EU member states will be carried out. A platform is built up that facilitates communication and collaborative working groups, that work on several, representative use cases, guided by an integrative reference framework. The framework consists of a sound architecture and infrastructure based on a business process modelling approach integrating existing standards and services. The development is done in close interaction with relevant stakeholders through the platform and international workshops. The results converge into a strategic research agenda that contains a roadmap for future developments. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider The established platform is intended to function as a Living Lab, so the in developing our own same lessons learned /discussion from the ‘Agri-Food Living Lab’ hold concept, the conclusion for this platform. Especially getting enough critical mass for each use of the literature source case is an important critical success factor that we didn’t solve enough or the project results) so far. From the in-depth analysis of the state-of-the-art in the EU countries Most important weaknesses and opportunities identified are: Aging of farmers in conjunction with the lack of adaption and investments on ICT. Availability (lack thereof) of broadband internet in rural area. Problematic issues around mobile technologies while the potential of computing based on mobile devices (smart phones and others) was recognized Fast up scaling agricultural countries have the opportunity to build new infrastructures, skipping the old structures of others Big differences between areas in the EU in terms of level of data integration and standardization. Member states can be divided in 4 levels.

For the interoperability framework it is concluded that the Business Process Modelling Notification (BPMN) is a suitable notation to have discussions between users and ICT developers.

Further information: Optional

51 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please mark __ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Agriculture methods

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Eco‐farming / Agroecology: A sustainable way to improve crop yields Literature http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/docs/A‐HRC‐16‐49.pdf source, http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/principles_and_strategies.html project http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/press_releases/20110308_agroecology‐report‐ name and pr_en.pdf web site, http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4263‐Can‐eco‐farming‐help‐fight‐ etc.) hunger‐ Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance Agroecology is both a science and a set of practices. It was created by the convergence of two scientific disciplines: agronomy and ecology. As a science, agroecology is the “application of ecological science to the study, design and management of sustainable agroecosystems. As a set of agricultural practices, agroecology seeks ways to enhance agricultural systems by mimicking natural processes, thus creating beneficial biological interactions and synergies among the components of the agroecosystem. It provides the most favourable soil conditions for plant growth, particularly by managing organic matter and by raising soil biotic activity. The core principles of agroecology include recycling nutrients and energy on the farm, rather than introducing external inputs;

52 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

integrating crops and livestock; diversifying species and genetic resources in agroecosystems over time and space; and focusing on interactions and productivity across the agricultural system, rather than focusing on individual species. Agroecology is highly knowledge‐intensive, based on techniques that are not delivered top‐down but developed on the basis of farmers’ knowledge and experimentation.

As a way to improve the resilience and sustainability of food systems, agroecology is now supported by an increasingly wide range of experts within the scientific community and by international agencies and organizations, such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNEP and Biodiversity International. It is also gaining ground in countries as diverse as the United States, Brazil, Germany and France.

Agroecology is a coherent concept for designing future farming systems as it is strongly rooted both in science and in practice, and because it shows strong connections with the principles of the right to adequate food (Section III). It can be seen as encompassing – or closely related to – approaches such as “ecoagriculture”21 and “evergreen agriculture,”22 while the concepts of “ecological intensification” and “conservation agriculture” often follow certain agroecological principles. Agroecology is also linked to the “ecosystem approach to sustainable crop production intensification” recently supported by the FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG).23 Discussion of the detailed differences among these concepts is beyond the scope of this report.

Crop breeding and agroecology are complementary. For instance, breeding provides new varieties with shorter growing cycles, which enable farmers to continue farming in regions where the crop season has already shrunk. Breeding can also improve the level of drought resistance in plant varieties, an asset for countries where lack of water is a limiting factor. Reinvesting in agricultural research must consequently mean continued efforts in breeding. However, agroecology is more overarching as it supports building droughtresistant agricultural Systems.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; With food prices at an all time high, the number of people going hungry in the world may what we once again rise above one billion. For many years now, world leaders and international should institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank have grappled with how to consider in increase food production to feed a growing population while simultaneously mitigating developing climate change and confronting a shortage of resources like oil, water and topsoil. our own concept, the Eco‐Farming Can Double Food Production in 10 Years, says new UN report. conclusion of the GENEVA – Small‐scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical literature regions by using ecological methods, a new UN report* shows. Based on an extensive source or review of the recent scientific literature, the study calls for a fundamental shift towards the project results) agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest.

“To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available,” says Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report. “Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food

53 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

production where the hungry live ‐‐ especially in unfavorable environments.”

Agroecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food crises and address climate‐change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.

“To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects,” De Schutter says. “Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3‐10 years.”

Further Optional information: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/docs/A‐HRC‐16‐49.pdf

54 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: agroXML standard for data exchange for farm management information systems Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Mario Schmitz, Daniel Martini e‐mail: [email protected], [email protected] Project Partner: KTBL

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) _x_ Other, specify: IT Standard ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) _x_ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _x_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: arable farming, to a lesser extent livestock farming __ Food, specify product: ______

Source www.agroxml.de (in German) (where to find; e.g. literature (only english references): Literature source, project Daniel Martini, Mario Schmitz, Jürgen Frisch and Martin Kunisch (2009): name and web site, etc.) A Service Architecture for Facilitated Metadata Annotation and Ressource Linkage Using agroXML and ReSTful Web Services. In: Fabio Sartori and Miguel Angel Sicilia and Nikos Manouselis (eds.): Metadata and Semantic Research ‐‐ Third International Conference, MTSR 2009 Milan, Italy October 1‐2, 2009 Proceedings. Springer‐Verlag, Berlin. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 46, pages 257—262. Daniel Martini and Mario Schmitz (2009): Data Infrastructures in Agriculture ‐‐ Attempts at Interoperability. In: Jan L. G. Dietz (ed.): KEOD 2009 ‐‐ Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development. Institute for Systems and Technologies of Information, Control and Communication, Portugal. Pages 287—292. Daniel Martini, Mario Schmitz, Jürgen Frisch and Martin Kunisch (2009): Enabling integration of distributed data for agricultural software

55 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

applications using agroXML. In: A. Bregt and S. Wolfert and J. E. Wien and C. Lokhorst (eds.): EFITA conference '09. Wageningen Academic Publishers. Wageningen, the Netherlands. Pages 145—150. Daniel Martini, Mario Schmitz, Ronnie Kullick and Martin Kunisch (2010): Fitting Information Systems to the Requirements of Agricultural Processes: A Flexible Approach Using agroXML and Linked Data Technologies. In: Proceedings AgEng 2010 – Towards Environmental Technologies, Clermont Ferrand, September 6‐8 2010.

Content with project agroXML is a standard for data exchange in agriculture. The underlying relevance data model covers processes in agricultural production from the point of view of the farm management information system. Real world objects handled and documented in on‐farm electronic data processing systems are composed from different complex or simple components representing certain atomic information items typical to agriculture in a resource‐oriented manner. This approach keeps the data structures flexible and applicable to various fields of activity and use cases (in contrast to the message‐oriented approach followed by other standards). Data elements in agroXML are defined using XML Schema, which is generally used for describing document structures and data storage formats. Third party data structures like e. g. polygon datatypes from the Geography Markup Language (GML) are integrated by the import mechanisms provided by XML Schema. The agroXML schema is supplemented by the use content lists which can be seen as a mechanism on the one hand for extensible enumerations and on the other hand for referencing partial external resources with additional information. xLink is used as a dynamic and flexible mechanism to link to documents and enabling access to information published according to RESTful and Linked Data approaches. The further development of agroXML is focused on adapting to and enhancing the XML data model with semantic web technologies and mapping available data sets into other suitable formats like JSON, N3 etc. Lessons learned for Simplicity and clarity are the key to developing data formats as well as project (very important; service infrastructures. During the last five years of agroXML what we should consider development, lots of methods and technologies in web services, data in developing our own representation and data modelling have been evaluated under concept, the conclusion different assumptions and in different use cases. The most crucial of the literature source lesson learned was to stick to a certain common ground available and or the project results) applicable to all potential users of the technology. This applies to the methods of data modelling as well as to methods of building service infrastructure. UML is e.g. in agroXML development only used to do first cut design or visualize and not as a design tool, as it has been found that mechanisms to map from UML to XML Schema to program code which implements data exchange is by no means portable between different platforms. In addition, XML Schema generated is unnecessarily complex. The same goes for using WSDL as means of describing services. Descriptions using these methods are not explicit enough to build interoperable implementations. Reuseability of components also mainly relies on a simple design using only common ground features and not restricting Schema design

56 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

patterns too much. It was for example rather easy to integrate datatypes from the Geography Markup Language into agroXML, as their designers mostly followed W3C best practices in Schema design. On the other hand, it was impossible to match Schemas to UBL and UN/CEFACT models, as current XML naming and design rules used in these standards forbid to use certain patterns that are common in other XML vocabularies, thus effectively preventing reuse. Concerning service implementation, both SOAPful and RESTful approaches have been tried out. The RESTful approach has been found to be much better suited to the agrifood sector, as it scales to a larger number of users and can be implemented more easily than a SOAPful approach. Future developments may build on semantic descriptions for data items represented in data formats and services thus allowing more dynamic binding between systems and overcoming interoperability and syntax representation issues. Further information: Optional

57 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: SOA4ALL Provider of this information (please specify): Name: David Quesada e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: Atos Origin

Background __ Literature X Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, competence domains the management, institutions involved, etc.) information does focus __ IT Technology components on; multiple marks __ Future Internet functionalities possible) Sector Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. http://www.soa4all.eu/ Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Computer science is entering a new generation. The emerging generation starts by abstracting from software and sees all resources as services in a SOA. In a world of services, it is the service that counts for a customer and not the software or hardware components which implement the service. Service‐oriented architectures are rapidly becoming the dominant computing paradigm.

However, current SOA solutions are still restricted in their application context to being in‐house solutions of companies. A service Web will have billions of services. While service orientation is widely acknowledged for its potential to revolutionize the world of computing by abstracting from the underlying hardware and software layers, its success depends on resolving a number of fundamental challenges that SOA does not address today.

SOA4All aims at realizing a world where billions of parties are exposing and consuming services via advanced Web technology. The project will provide a comprehensive framework and infrastructure that integrates five complementary and revolutionary technical advances into a coherent and domain independent service delivery platform:

* SOA as the emerging dominant paradigm for application development which abstracts from software to the notion of service. * Context management, i.e., adapting services to meet local environmental constraints, organizational policies and personal preferences.

58 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

* Web principles to scale SOA to a world wide Web communications infrastructure. * Web 2.0 as a means to structure human‐machine cooperation in an efficient and cost‐effective manner. * Semantic Web technologies to automate service discovery, mediation and composition. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; The open ecosystem is based on the idea of “a web of billions of what we should consider services” in an open environment. It is an environment where an in developing our own unlimited number of services can be offered, found, consumed and concept, the conclusion created. The interaction of different services and market actors is then of the literature source enabled by SOA4ALL technology. It was analyzed the most popular or the project results) internet‐based business models and provide deeper analysis on the most significant companies such as Google and Facebook. There is a wide range of business models for using a broad user base to generate profit, ranging from advertising to content licensing. From this analysis, we identify the most suitable business models for SOA4ALL, such as selling advertising space on the SOA4ALL site, to acting as reseller of products offered on the SOA4ALL site or creating two different versions of SOA4ALL: one free basic version and an alternative extended commercial version. What is remarkable is that that all major successful internet companies are deriving the majority of their income by generating very small incomes per person while serving very large volumes of customers at the same time (the phenomenon known as Long Tail in the Telco sector). SOA4ALL is also relevant to this model. SOA4ALL offers added value in the open ecosystem approach, as it is a flexible and scalable solution for modern architectures, getting advantage of the most updated technological solutions to provide functional and nonfunctional properties that no other platform can provide nowadays.

In the case studies SOA4All technologies play an essential role to make possible the vision of realizing a web where creating and consuming services become as easy as we create and consume web pages nowadays. SOA4All offers flexibility to implement different business models and make the solution profitable in a value network where more actors come into the ground (opening opportunities to new stakeholders, like third parties and prosumers). What is clear is that success is only possible if not only the technology is “4All” but also benefits in one way or another (revenue flows in the value network) are “4All”. Further information: Optional

59 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: RATIS & TRACEBACK Provider of this information (please specify): Name: David Quesada e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: Atos Origin

Background __ Literature X Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, competence domains the storage, communication etc. of information). information does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple marks between enterprises and consumers) possible) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: Reference Architecture for Traceability Information systems

Sector X Agriculture, specify product: Fresh tomato X Food, specify product: Feed/Dairy

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. www.traceback‐ip.eu Literature source, project Paper: RATIS ‐ Proposal for a Reference Architecture for Traceability name and web site, etc.) Information Systems. cedi2005.ugr.es/2010/pdf/Programa_CEDI2010.pdf Paper: Traceback ‐ Definition of a service‐oriented reference model for Food Traceability and experiences in real industrial conditions http://www.scce.gr/2010/day2.htm

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The subject focus in the development of a reference model relying in services concepts to be used in the area of traceability information systems (TIS) and, in general, in supply chain management systems (SCM). RATIS is one of the results of FP6 EC TRACEBACK project, a 4 year integrated project supported by the FP6 of the European Commission developing an innovative system to prevent food chain crises (such as those evidenced in recent years), and therefore will allow the consumers to make more informed choices regarding the producers of the goods on their supermarket shelves. This, in turn, can significantly hinder the flow of inferior food and encourage quality and competitiveness throughout the European sector. The main reason to define a reference architecture is to solve a problem

60 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

(traceability) in general and define a set/family of solutions for such a problem by providing how each specific solution (i.e. concrete architecture) and its components should look like, guidelines and best practices for defining specific solutions, and others’ experience to exploit. The side effect (and at the same time a good motivation) for defining a reference architecture is to have most of the general issues already solved. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; Managing and supporting supply chain traceability processes involve what we should consider complex tasks from an ICT point of view. Actors within the same supply in developing our own chain can manage traceability issues is different ways according to concept, the conclusion sector specific legal requirements, company quality management of the literature source policies, predefined target market and so on; moreover the level of or the project results) process automation and the adoption of IT tools in use to guarantee traceability can be very different within the same supply chain: they can change from paper based system to very advanced IT solution integrating traceability with production and logistics processes. As a consequence an ICT system supporting the idea of supply chain traceability should address a very streaked context where several ICT systems coexist and where actors’ requirements and needs are different and in some cases could be in contrast. One of the key results of Traceback project is the Reference Architecture for Traceability Information Systems (RATIS), which is a set of specifications to develop service‐oriented traceability systems. The approach of Traceback is to build a definition of a general framework (i.e. RATIS Technology Suite), instead of a traceability system. Indeed the assumption is that a universal traceability system (though limited to a family of food products) is not possible due to several both technical and business reasons. The main reason to define a reference architecture is to solve a problem (traceability) in general and define a set/family of solutions for such a problem by providing how each specific solution (i.e. concrete architecture) and its components should look like, guidelines and best practices for defining specific solutions, and others’ experience to exploit. The side effect (and at the same time a good motivation) for defining a reference architecture is to have most of the general issues already solved. Further information: Optional

61 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Food Supply Chain ‐ Energy Efficiency Standard

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. BS EN 16001 Standard by SGS: Literature http://www.es.sgs.com/es/bs‐en‐16001.htm?lobId=5554 source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance BS EN 16001:2009 helps you to continuously improve energy efficiency by taking the form of requirements and guidance intended to help you reduce both costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is achieved by helping you develop and implement energy management systems, which include policy and objectives that take into account legal or other specific requirements and information about their significant energy aspects. BS EN 16001:2009 is intended to apply to all types and sizes of organizations and can be integrated with, or used independently of, any other management system. The structure of BS EN 16001 is similar to that of the Environmental Management Standard ISO 14001. The level of detail and complexity of individual energy management systems will depend on a

62 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

number of factors: ‐ The size of the organization; ‐ The scope of its energy management system; ‐ The nature of its activities and products or services; and ‐ The documentation and resources required to implement the energy management system.

The standard itself comprises both the requirements of an energy management system together with guidance on the use of the Standard.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; The Benefits what we ‐ Recognizes that energy management encompasses a range of issues, including those with should both strategic and competitive implications; consider in developing ‐ Assures clients and stakeholders that you have an appropriate energy management system our own in place; concept, the conclusion ‐ Provides a framework for continuous improvement; and of the literature ‐ Enables an organization to take a systematic approach to the continuous improvement of its source or energy efficiency. the project results)

Further information:

63 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Alfredo Pedromingo Suárez e‐mail: apedromingo@asi‐soft.com Project Partner: ASI

Background _X_ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: information is based on) Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please mark __ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities _X_ Other, specify: Representation and analysis of (agro‐related) data

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product:

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. IEEE 2002 International Conference on Communications, Circuits and Systems and West Sino Literature Expositions. source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance Introduccion

Crop physiology analysis and growth monitoring are of great importance for precision agriculture. Remote sensing technology supplies us more selections and available spaces in this dynamic change study by producing images of different spatial, different spectral and different temporal resolutions. Especially, the remote sensing data of high spectral and high temporal resolution will play a key role

64 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

in land cover studies at national, regional and global scales. In this study, a new effective data structure conception, Temporal Index Image Cube (MIIC) is proposed in aid of the parameterization of multi‐dimension spectral curve. MIIC is proved very useful for the dynamic analysis of vegetation. Based on multi‐temporal meteorological satellite data and multi‐temporal ground spectral measurements, the temporal characteristics of different vegetation physiological parameters are contrasted and analyzed from temporal index image cube. It turned out, each crop has its differentiated temporal index curve. Based on this multi‐temporal index image cube, the classification and identification on various crops is very practicable. Some spectral indices perform fairly well on monitoring the growth situation of crops. But more efforts still should be made to develop new effective and general spectral index, which will he more sensible to land cover types and the growth situation, moreover, it will screen the effects of atmosphere and background to a large extent.

The Multi‐temporal Index Image Cube (MIIC)

Any remote sensed data can be expressed as an image cube with three dimensions (Fig 1), where X‐Y plane represents the geographic coordinates of pixels and their spatial relationship on the earth, S‐ axis represents the spectral channel or spectral wavelength, which provides the characteristic information of the object in the remote sensing image. If dynamic changes analysis in a specific area is what we concern and the multi‐temporal remote sensed data are available, these remote sensed data can he expressed as an Image Cube Chain in four dimensions.

1. Image Cube and Multitemporal Image Cube Chain

Every image cube represents the remote sensed information in a specific period. In addition, a spectral curve can be extracted from every pixel of the image cube, which surely contains all secret code of an object in pixel scale. As the spectral curve, actually a series of data point, is concentrated to an index, the data assembled in four dimensions can be simplified to a new data format in three dimensions. The new data structure is called Multi‐temporal Index Image Cube (MIIC) (Fig.2, where the X‐Y plane still represents geographic coordinates and T represents temporal.) Correspondingly, this three ‐dimension spectral curved surface can he simplified to a two‐dimension curve.

2. Temporal Image Cube; 2‐Dimension indexx curve shifted from three‐ dimensional spectral curved surface

65 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Multi‐temporal NDVI Image Cube Based on Meteorological Satellite Data

The first works on land cover mapping and land cover change monitoring were based on the analysis of multi‐temporal Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) series produced by the NOAA‐ AVHRR images. The so‐called “greenness index” NDVI, has a high relationship with the vegetation coverage and has proved to be very useful in vegetation monitoring. For the purpose of this study, FY‐IC images were used to characterize the dynamic change of three kinds of crops. FY‐1C is a Chinese polar meteorological satellite with 10 spectral channels, among them channel 1 (0.58pm 0.68fim)and channel 2 (0.84pm‐0.89pm) were used to calculate NDVI.

Every crop has its special growth rule and phenological calendar. Fig. 3 shows the multitemporal NDVI image cube built by the satellite images and the multitemporal NDVI curves extracted from it for the double‐harvest rice and wheat and autumn crops like corn and broomcorn. It is very clear that, their temporal index curves are quite varied in the multitemporal index image cube, the multitemporal NFVI curves have a higher relationship with the periods of duration of specific variety of crops, certainly the NDVI curve of water body is a zero‐value line. High “green” peaks all appear at the crop jointing and heading stage. Low NDVI values all appear in the rice harvesting or rice transplanting periods. The multi‐temporal NDVl curve embodies and reflects the phenological calendars of different crops. Based on this multi‐temporal index image cube, the classification and identification on various crops is very practicable.

3. Multitemporal Index Image Cube and NDVI profiles extracted from it.

IV. Multi‐Temporal Index Image Cube Based on Hyperspectral Data

In recent years, new hyperspectral sensors have become available providing both high spatial resolution and high spectral resolution data. These characteristics combined with high signal to noise ratio allow it more possible to differentiate vegetation types and extract biophysical or biochemical information which are of great importance for precision crop management. Remote estimates of pigment concentrations will provide an improved evaluation of the spatial and temporal dynamics of vegetation stress, better estimates of productivity by measuring and interpreting absorbed photosynthetically active radiation more accurately, and potentially the improved discrimination of species by monitoring phonological dynamics"*'. Thus, it is very necessary and critical to develop effective spectral indices to quantitatively extract these vegetation parameters. Multi‐temporal index

66 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

image cube based on hyperspectral data aims to the transformation of vegetation pigment and biophysical properties in crop periods of duration

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; what we MIIC is very useful for supporting the dynamic analysis on vegetation phenological and physiological should characteristics. With the help of MIIC model, dynamic NDVI curves can be extracted from multi‐ consider in temporal index image cube of meteorological satellite data, which are in accordance with regular developing crop periods of duration. Results show that the temporal NDVI index curves are quite discriminable our own between different vegetation, which can be used as a criterion to improve the classification and concept, the identification precision. Hyperspectral image with high spatial and high spectral resolution plays a conclusion unique role in differentiating vegetation types and extract biophysical or biochemical information by of the forming spectral indices. In the present study, some of the developed spectral indices were selected literature to test their capability for tracking temporal dynamics of vegetation physiological situation, source or performing fairly well on monitoring the growth situation of crops, though inconsistency still exists. the project Therefore, more efforts should be made to develop new effective spectral index, which will be more results) sensible to land cover types and the growth situation, and will take into account the effects of the atmosphere and background to a larger extent. The study on the spectral index formation will be helpful for band selection of hyperspectral CCD camera so that it can performs well and be widely used in acquiring such seasonal remote sensing data. For this purpose, the normalization of these multi‐temporal data is very important.

Further Optional information:

67 D100.1 Input April 18, 2011

Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Robert Reiche, Richard Lehmann, Gerhard Schiefer Organisation: CentMa e-mail: [email protected]

Background __ Literature (please cross) _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please cross, __ Information Needs multiple crosses) _X_ Information Organization __ Chain Communication Organization _X_ System Organization __ Process Organization _X_ IT Technology components _X_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: Fruits and vegetables___ __ Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: www.cuteloop.eu (where to find; e.g. FP7 Project CERP-ICT Cluster Literature source, project Project duration from February 2008-June 2011 name and web site, etc.) Content with relevance Specify: for scenario Organisation of access to product and process-related information at different actors using a access platform concept (decentralised approach)

Integrated Framework for developing business information services using networked devices (RFID, mobile devices) focussing on the provision of static and dynamic product and process-related data for improvement of business process inherent decision making

Rule-based Filtering of information and triggering appropriate actions in the business process based on networked device intelligence

Technology roadmap for three levels of technological development (today, in 5 years and visionary scenario setting)

Application Scenario Fresh Fruits and Vegetables with reference processes for three use cases: - Provision of decentralised stored food quality and safety information (certification information, laboratory results) - Dynamic monitoring of product movements along the food supply chain - Activation of deficient products using a) provision of exception information (e.g. contamination) based on laboratory results or b) direct messaging to ‚intelligent‘ product box (intelligent RFID on product packaging) for signalling a deficiency (red or green screen).

68 D100.1 Input April 18, 2011

Lessons learned for Specify: scenario New Technology has important impact on service organisation (RFID as information carrier and key to additional information based on unique identifier). Agent technology is required to enable flexible connections between distributed data sources in a specified organisation scheme.

Information services for fresh fruit and vegetables to improve food safety and detection of deficient products and their elimination from the distribution process are urgently required to prevent public recalls.

Standards and protocols are urgently required for establishing a „food information network“ based on project results and to enable comprehensive information services in complex agri-food supply networks. Further information: Optional

69 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Cor Verdouw e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: LEI - WUR

Background __ Literature x Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the --- Expert experience, specify who: information is based on) --- Other, specify:______

Sector x__ Agriculture, specify product: horticulture __ Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Verdouw, C.N., Robbemond, R.M., Ravensbergen, P., Beulens, A.J.M., Literature source, project Wolfert, J., 2011. Digital Horticulture: Adoption and Enhancement of name and web site, etc.) Information Management in the Dutch Horticulture. In: Gelb, E., Charvat, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th European Federation for ICT in Agriculture, Food and the Environment (EFITA) conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 11-14 July 2011. Czech Centre for Science and Society, Prague, pp. 204-214. Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The project is about Dutch horticulture’s activity in the field of information management. Much progress is made, among others in the development and adoption of eBusiness standards. However, the development of information management in the sector is still fragmented and too slow. Furthermore, it is found that most projects work on inter-enterprise integration, the focus is on data exchange and most projects have an operational perspective. As a result, the ambition of the sector to be leading in the field of information management in horticulture chains is hindered. To overcome this, the program Digital Horticulture was formulated to coordinate ICT initiatives within

70 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

and between horticultural sub-sectors (various vegetables and ornamentals), in close cooperation with governments and research/education. The study has defined five key areas for future development: information standards, chain information management, enterprise information systems, Business-to-Government and ICT Knowledge and Competences.

In these areas, the Digital Horticulture program will support the exchange of knowledge, development of shared visions, alignment of ICT projects, common representation in international standardisation bodies, and business-driven research. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider For each of the key areas important conclusions and remaining in developing our own challenges were formulated: concept, the conclusion of the literature source information standards or the project results) The generic eBusiness standards are fairly well integrated with international standards, in particular because of cooperation with GS1. However, the international embedding of horticulture-specific standards is an important future challenge. The adoption of standards is still too low. The challenge is to increase the usage of standards by the horticultural business and ICT vendors. There are several national standards for coding horticultural products (in particular floriculture). Reasons are that there are very many species and the required level of detail differs for different purposes of usage. The challenge is to harmonise the different standards and to integrate them with relevant international standards.

chain information management The emphasis in this theme is shifting from individual software interfaces and central data warehouses towards distributed software applications based on web services, without a central storage of data These applications should support a rapid, reliable, secure and flexible data communication Using such application requires big changes of business processes and supply chain cooperation. SMEs miss the competences and mass needed for the implementation; the added value often is not clear enough increase the knowledge and awareness and to support innovative pilots and to establish a common infrastructure, including supporting services and tools

enterprise information systems The availability of solid and seamless integrated enterprise management systems, that are at the same time flexible and include dynamic planning. An important prerequisite of successful implementation of an integral management system is a professional management of business processes. However, many horticultural companies heavily rely on improvisation. Consequently, well-structured process management and a good administrative organisation are important challenges.

71 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The development of standards to integrate technical greenhouse and logistics systems with management information systems.

Business-to-Government governments and certification and inspection bodies should better connect to information systems and standards as apparent in the horticultural business There still is a mismatch a mismatch between the information need of the government and the already available information in horticulture and the mutual transparency is insufficient

ICT Knowledge and Competences Companies lack the required knowledge, among others because information and communication technologies are perceived to be complex and developments are going fast Besides knowledge, many companies (in particular growers) are not convinced about the necessity to work actively on improvement of their information management create a sense of urgency. This can be done by developing incentives by chain partners to stimulation the usage of standards, tailored communication, and educational activities providing companies knowledge among others about recent technologies and how to use ICT to improve business processes

Further information: Optional

72 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: EANCOM® / DESADV Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sabine Kläser e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Backgrou __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) nd __ Expert experience, specify who: ______(please _X Other: Standard mark what the informatio n is based on) Focus _x_ Information needs of Businesses (please __ Information needs of consumers mark the __ Information needs of policy competen _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, ce storage, communication etc. of information) domains __ Information organization for farm cooperation the _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or informatio between enterprises and consumers) n does __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, focus on; management, institutions involved, etc.) multiple __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) marks _x_ IT Technology components possible) _x_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: General Food

Source (where to find; e.g. Literature Informaton on utilizsation of EANCOM ®: source, project http://www.gs1.org/sites/default/files/docs/ecom/eCom_Standards_in_the_GS1_Com name and munity_2010.pdf (executive summary) web site, etc.) http://www.gs1.org/sites/default/files/docs/ecom/eCom_Implementation_2010_Overv iew.pdf (detailed description)

73 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

® Content EANCOM is a GS1 EDI standard, fully based on the UN/EDIFACT (United Nations Electronic with Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport), which comprises a set of project internationally agreed standards, directories and guidelines for the electronic interchange of data. relevance EANCOM® provides the collection of only those message element which are needed by the business application and required by the syntax (mandatory elements). Omitted are optional elements covering very specific business requirements not relevant for GS1 users. EANCOM® incorporates into the electronic messages, the GS1 standards of physical identification of trade items, logistics units and the Global Location Numbers identifying the trading partners. It allows to integrate the physical flow of goods with related information sent by electronic means. In 2008 more than 100 000 users worldwide used EANCOM® .

74 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The AS2 is used to send Classic EDI messages over the internet. Details are presented in the table below:

75 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The EANCOM® Message DESADV (Despatch Advice) contains the relevant information for the interchange of variable information crucial for traceability such as GTIN, lot number, expiry/best before date, supplier ID, gross weight, net weight or logistics service provider.

Principles: The message may be used either to indicate the despatch of goods being delivered, or to indicate the despatch of goods being returned. The message intent is to advise of the detailed contents of a consignment. The message relates to one seller and one buyer or their respective agent.The message relates to a single despatch point and single or multiple destination points. It may cover a number of different items and packages.

It allows the recipient to: know when the material has been despatched or will be ready for despatch. have the precise details of the consignment. take initial steps towards customs clearance in case of international consignments. enable the control between despatched goods with the following invoice.

The Despatch Advice message should always be sent before goods are physically delivered or returned. This makes it possible for the receiving party to use the data to prepare efficiently for the reception of the goods.

Each unit delivered (pallet, carton, ...) should be uniquely identified. In the Despatch Advice message, the products contained in each uniquely identified unit are described. When the goods are received, the physical shipment and the electronic message can be cross-checked. Discrepancies are immediately identified. It is recommended to use the standard Serial Shipping Container Code structure to identify the units.

Structure

The message enables a hierarchical description of the shipment, starting with the highest level (shipment) and ending with the lowest level (items). One can for example describe a container comprising 5 pallets, a pallet being composed of several large despatch units which themselves contain smaller despatch units. The traded units (any level of packaging agreed by the trading partners) are then specified.

Application scenarios of the DESADV message

Below different possibilities are illustrated on the use of the despatch advice message (DESADV). Please note especially the allocation of delivery - despatch advice and the allocation of delivery - transport means/units. The despatch advice (DESADV) can have references to one or more purchase orders (ORDERS). If a consignment is split into multiple transport means/units more than one DESADV can have references to one ORDERS.

76 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Basic principle

In general at least one DESADV should be sent per transport means/units, e.g., truck, container or swap trailer even if a consignment is allocated to multiple transport means/units.

Scenario 1: One despatch advice (DESADV) per order

One truck transports consignments of different suppliers. Each consignment of a supplier relates to one purchase order (ORDERS) and is adviced by one DESADV and will be followed by one commercial invoice (INVOIC).

Scenario 2: One despatch advice (DESADV) per supplier

One truck transports consignments of different suppliers. Only one DESADV is sent per supplier. Each of them has references to different purchase orders (ORDERS). Every DESADV will be followed by one commercial invoice (INVOIC) containing a reference to this DESADV.

Scenario 3: One despatch advice (DESADV) per truck

Initiated by one purchase order (ORDERS) different trucks transport one consignment of one supplier. For each truck a DESADV is sent, all referencing to one ORDERS. In the following procedure one commercial invoice (INVOIC) is generated per DESADV.

77 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Sequence of the segment groups SG11 (PAC) and SG17 (LIN)

As the PAC and LIN group are on the same hierarchy level of the detail section different ways of interpretation are possible about the sequence of information relating the packages (PAC) and goods (LIN) in the DESADV.

If the detail section provides information about packages and the contained goods the related LIN group should follow immediately the PAC group. The PAC group should NOT be used to describe all packages first and than be followed by the LIN group describing all goods.

Example:

... CPS+2+1' Second consignment level, 1. pallet PAC+1++201' One ISO-1-pallet MEA+PD+AAB+KGM:263.2' Pallet gross weight 263,2 kg PCI+33E' Pallet marked with SSCC GIN+BJ+354107280000001051' SSCC 354107280000001051 PAC+20++CT' Pallet contains 20 cartons LIN+1++5410738000152:SRV' The product is identified by GTIN 5410738000152 QTY+12:20' Delivered quantity 20 ...

Indication of SSCC

78 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

In general the SSCC of the package is to be indicated within the PAC group. The PCI group below LIN primary provides information about the article. An example of the use is 17 = supplier's instructions followed by GIN containing a serial number, batch number, etc.

Description of the consignment hierarchy (CPS)

The following example describes a consignment containing of three pallets. The first pallet contains 5 cartons marked with SSCC. The second pallet describes a "sandwich pallet" separating single layers with a pallet. Each pallet of each layer is marked with SSCC. The creation of a hierarchy shows one pallet with multiple layers (pallets). The third pallet contains only one type of article.

The CPS segment should describe all despatch units within the hierarchy that are marked with package identification (SSCC).

Example: One pallet contains 10cartons marked with SSCC

CPS+1' Highest package hierarchy PAC Pallet contains 10 cartons PCI Pallet is marked with SSCC GIN SSCC of the pallet

CPS+2+1' 1. Unit PAC One carton PCI Marked with SSCC GIN SSCC of the carton LIN Article contained in the carton

79 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

QTY Quantity

CPS+3+1' 2. Unit PAC One carton PCI Marked with SSCC GIN SSCC of the carton LIN Article contained in the carton QTY Quantity etc.

DESADV for products of variable quantity

The following is an example of a Despatch Advice message providing a description of a consignment to be despatched by the supplier of the goods, identified by GLN 4005505000001. The buyer of the goods is identified by GLN 4300234000002 and the outlet where the goods are to be delivered is identified by GLN 4306545000007.

The Despatch Advice, reference number 3387 is sent on the 03.01.2007. The goods to be despatched are a complete shipment of the goods purchased according to the buyer's purchase order number 4506102649. They are to be delivered on the 07.01.2007.

UNH+1+DESADV:D:01B:UN:EAN007’ Begin of message

BGM+351+3387+9’ Despatch advice No. 3387

DTM+137:20070103:102’ Document date 03.01.2007

DTM+17:20070107:102’ Delivery date, estimated 07.01.2007

RFF+DQ:80683239’ Delivery note No. 80683239

RFF+ON:4506102649’ Buyers order No. 4506102649

NAD+BY+4300234000002::9’ GLN buyer 4300234000002

NAD+DP+4306545000007::9’ GLN delivery party 4306545000007

NAD+SU+4005505000001::9’ GLN supplier 4005505000001

The DESADV refers to a consignment containing of one pallet identified by SSCC. 24 entire Gouda cheeses have been ordered (GTIN 4005500073437).

CPS+1’ Highest level of hierarchy

PAC+1’ Consignment contains 1 package

CPS+2+1’ Highest level of hierarchy

PAC+1+:52+201::9’ Consignment contains 1 ISO 1 pallet

PCI+33E’

GIN+BJ+340055006337013062’ SSCC of the consignment

LIN+1++4005500073437:SRV’ GTIN 4005500073437

80 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

MEA+ABW+AAL:::+KGM:248.8' the net weight of the line ist 248.8 kg.

QTY+12:24’ 24 pieces will be delivered

PCI+39E’ marked with

DTM+361:20070215:102' best before date 15.02.2007

PCI+36E’ and marked with

GIN+BX+987654' batch number 987654

UNT+21+1’ End of message

In DESADV the ordered quantity is shown as delivered quantity (24 pieces). Additionally the weight is indicated, which will be the invoiced quantity in the INVOIC.

Lessons - GS1 EDI standards such as EANCOM® together with GS1 Identification and Data learned Captures Standards and the EPCIS complement one another to a comprehensive identification and communication system. - Within the FMCG Sector the GS1 EDI standards are commonly used. They in turn are based on the worldwide unique identification keys (e.g. GLN, GTIN, SSCC). New concepts should consider this since the stakeholders probably will not accept a completely new approach. - Variable data such as best before date or batch number are already incorporated. - There are Application Guidelines related to logistics and to Food - Supply Chain Structures and Processes related to logistics and food industry are already documented. Further informati on:

81 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: EANCOM project: Electronic order of shipment , transport status, calculation and payment advice with company FruitLine(logistics service provider in the fruit- vegetable branch) Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Dora Lanzinger e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __X Other, specify : EANCOM ______information is based on) Focus (please _x_ Information needs of Businesses mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence __ Information needs of policy domains the _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, information does storage, communication etc. of information) focus on; __ Information organization for farm cooperation multiple marks __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or possible) between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: __ fruits ______

Source (where to find; http://www.prozeus.de/prozeus/daten/broschueren/edi/prozeus_doc03192.htm e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with In this three-stage project, paper communication, such as fax, was replaced by an project relevance electronic based system. Now the exchange is done by EDI.

Also, the process was improved between FruitLine and its partner. The transport service providers were integrated into the process.

The manual input of orders in the ERP system was very time-consuming for FruitLine. Now FruitLine use the electronic transfer for orders, they don´t use manual input. This reduced mistakes, improved the data quality and saved a lot of time. Over all, this increased economic efficiency and saved the company

82 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

money. Relations with the business partners are stronger and more efficient. There are no mistakes with electronic transfer so the data can immediately be used, for example for analysis. The staff costs are reduced, so the company can increase turnover with the same number of employees

Lessons learned for project (very This project shows that also small companies can improve logistic processes and important; what save money. we should consider in developing our own concept, the conclusion of the literature source or the project results)

Further FruitLine acts as a logistics service provider in the fruit-vegetable branch. Up to information: now, in this area GS1 standards are not as present, as in other sectors of the German economy. So, FruitLine can get a competitive advantage, also over top- selling companies, with this system. The fruit and vegetable sector used only national standards up to now, but in the future only international standards will be valid. After this project, FruitLine is prepared for the future.

83 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sabine Kläser e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Background X_ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other: Standard and Service information is based on) Focus (please _x_ Information needs of Businesses mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence __ Information needs of policy domains the _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, information does storage, communication etc. of information) focus on; __ Information organization for farm cooperation multiple marks _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or possible) between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: General Food

Source http://reg.ecr-all.org/content/ecropedia_element.php?ID=11896

Content with ECR Blue Book: Using Traceability in the Supply Chain to meet Consumer Safety project relevance Expectations

The ECR blue book describes best practices at European level to track and trace products through the supply chain and to allow for efficient crisis management, based on GS1 Standards, such as unique identification of products and locations, pallet labelling, standardised messaging and information exchange. It describes product traceability as a supply chain end-to-end process from goods arriving at a manufacturer's factory (e.g. raw material, packaging material) to the finished product purchased by a consumer in an outlet and vice versa. It also includes a section on crisis management between manufacturers and retailers. The blue book is addressed to quality managers, supply chain/ logistics managers, factory and warehouse managers, customer and consumer services, legal departments, communication managers and IT departments.

Since it was issued in 2004 it does not incorporate the use of EPC/RFID or GS1 DataBar, and the meaning of the Internet with regard to data exchange and data

84 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

sharing has risen. However the described general principles on cross company traceability are still state of the art and give clear guidance on how traceability of food can be carried out from a supply chain and process point of view.

Please note that EAN International is the former denomination of GS1 and EAN.UCC Standards are referred to GS1 Standards today.

Lessons learned Guiding Principles: for project (very important; what Traceability Systems must be based on commonly agreed standards in order to we should ensure accurate and fast flow of information and optimise traceability data consider in processing and communication. developing our own concept, the Each operator is free to decide on how to implement his internal traceability conclusion of the system as long as he is able to receive, process and communicate the necessarey literature source information and data to his upstream and downstream trading partners in an or the project accurate and timely manner. results) There are four traceability principles:

1. Unique identification of products, logistic units and locations 2. Traceability data capture and recording 3. Links management and traceability data retrieval 4. Traceability data communication

Further German literature: information: - “Tracking & Tracing – GS1-Standards sorgen für Transparenz (http://www.gs1- germany.de/common/downloads/gs1_tech/2018_tracking_tracing_sd.p df) - Von Tracking & Tracing profitieren (obtainable via GS1 Germany) - ECR-Empfehlung zu Rückverfolgbarkeit und effizientem Warenrückruf (obtainable via GS1 Germany)

85 Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e-mail: Project Partner: NKUA

Background _X_ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market (please mark what the software) information is based __ Expert experience, specify who: on) ______Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains __ Information needs of consumers the information does __ Information needs of policy focus on; multiple __ Information organization for logistics or transparency marks possible) (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components _X_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: Smart Farming __ Food, specify product: ______

Source [1]. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Web Services: (where to find; e.g. The Road to Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) Literature source, available at project name and web http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/soa site, etc.) -142870.html [2]. CuteLoop Research Project / State – of – the – Art – Analysis available at http://www.cuteloop.eu/filearchive/2528faf25a480f074f 781c6b4c1ce0f3.pdf [3]. Enterprise Service Bus in WebSphere Application Server V6, http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246494 .pdf [4]. Event – Driven Architecture Overviw by Brenda M. Michelson available at, http://www.omg.org/soa/Uploaded%20Docs/EDA/bda2- 2-06cc.pdf [5]. Understand Enterprise Service Bus scenarios and

86 solutions in Service-Oriented Architecture, Part 1 available at, http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/ws- esbscen/ [6]. Understanding Integration From A “Needs- Based” Perspective – Mule vs. Open ESB / Glassfish ESB http://www.mulesoft.org/comparing-mule-vs-open-esb- glassfish-esb [7]. Frequently asked questions: Enterprise service bus, available at Federal Computer Week http://fcw.com/Articles/2005/10/10/Frequently--asked- questions-Enterprise-service-bus.aspx?Page=1#

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is an architectural approach for implementing software applications that enables independent services to interoperate each other. Papazoglou M.P. defined that the interfaces of a system, which are structured in line with SOA, can be described, published, discovered and invoked over a network. The invocation semantics behind this architecture, complies with the synchronous request/reply model, which means that asynchronous communication is beyond its capabilities. This drawback can be surpassed combing SOA with Event Driven Agents (EDA) creating an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). EDA take place inside or outside a business when notable things occur which have to be handled immediately using invocation of a service, triggering a process or publishing further information about specific alarms. Unlike SOA, EDA complies with the subscribe/publish pattern and enables both synchronous and asynchronous communication. ESB is currently the most innovative middleware layer that assists the integration of heterogeneous systems, supports web services, XML, message routing and event-based interactions. It is scalable, secure and semantically enriched service – oriented. It is an intermediate infrastructure, since providers and consumers are “plugged” into the bus and do not connect directly each other in order to exchange services or messages. The capabilities of ESB can be summarized as:  Communications: routing i.e. content – based, rules – based, policy based, addressing, messaging, supporting standardized protocols etc  Integration: database, data enrichment, adapters, service mapping, protocol transformation, use of

87 different application server environments, IDEs, language interfaces etc  Security: authentication, authorization, security management and administration, data integrity, confidentially, etc  Message processing and management: appropriate routing depending on the content of messages, monitoring, logging, metering, supporting different patterns of messaging exchanging, handling exceptions, queuing, etc  Modeling: custom message and data models, capable of identifying services and process inside and outside an industry, etc  Quality of service: reliable delivery of messages, interaction management, error handling, etc  Infrastructure intelligence: trend to be more automatic, support pattern recognition, etc

Lessons learned for The basic prerequisite for using ESB successfully is to project (very important; consider that it is about visualizing an integrated what we should architecture and not just implementing a simple product. consider in developing Developing a model for this kind of architecture is a riddle, our own concept, the as the individual needs of every system differentiates on a conclusion of the use – case by a use – case basis. Although, ESB architecture literature source or the project results) has reached an expectable level of maturity and certain functionalities can be feasible when designing a product, critical parameters should be taken into account like the overall philosophy, ergonomics, the deployment of every product in way that can be interwoven with all the existing ones in order not to resort to solutions that may be unprofitable both in time and cost, etc.

Nevertheless, ESB advocates said customers save money and time. It is important to remind us that all the used technologies for ESB are standardized. The impact of this is that integration requires less outsourcing. Therefore, after thorough consideration of the functional and non – functional requirements of SmartAgriFood pilot, we could use ESB architecture in order to  Design the three sub-systems and their surrounding services separately, providing us with the opportunity to integrate them effortlessly.  Increase the reusability, which means that alterations can be done without effecting the overall operation of the system.

88  Develop tremendously the standardized languages for agriculture e.g. agroXML, electronic business e.g. ebXML and chain traceability e.g. tracecoreXML covering the stakeholders’ increasing demands, since XML is supported by ESB.  Ensure that all the information is being transferred with security.  Facilitate the content management. This means that the implementation will be more ergonomic for every party due to the fact that useless information will be concealed.

Further information: Optional

89 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) _X_ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the _X_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the _X_ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Agri‐food sector

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project Environmental Standards in the Agri‐Food sector: name and web site, etc.) The National Agri‐Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI) http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=4B40916E‐ 1&xsl=privateArticles2,viewfull&po=EC0AF11F

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Most people think of farmers as the people who help put the food on our tables. But farmers also play an important role as environmental stewards. Canadian farms are getting bigger and busier to keep up with increasing competition and consumer demands. As this happens, farmers and the agricultural sector are working harder to make better environmental choices. A new set of environmental performance standards are now available to help farmers and the agricultural industry improve overall environmental stewardship within the sector.

90 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The National Agri‐Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI)

The National Agri‐Environmental Standards Initiative (NAESI), a collaborative initiative from 2004–2009 between Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada, was established to gain a better understanding of relationships between agriculture and the environment and to develop a suite of science‐based agri‐ environmental performance standards for water, air, biodiversity and pesticides.

NAESI developed two types of performance standards: Ideal Performance Standards (IPS) and Achievable Performance Standards (APS). An ideal standard can be thought of as a long‐term goal describing the desired level of environmental quality. An achievable standard specifies the environmental quality achievable with currently available technology through application of beneficial management practices (BMPs) and/or alternative land management practices. Environmental targets such as guidelines, standards, objectives or benchmarks are one means to safeguard and improve environmental quality. Targets are recommended levels of nutrients, sediments, pesticides, or other parameters. If attained, these target levels will assure a negligible risk to biota, including humans, or to any interaction integral to sustaining health of ecosystems and resources.

Research conducted under NAESI has helped develop national, non‐ regulatory water quality and quantity performance standards to guide agri‐environmental decision making for agriculturally dominated watersheds. Environment Canada researchers and partners used several different methodologies to develop the standards, including evaluation of lethal and chronic effects caused by toxic stressors such as pesticides and nitrate; change in the abundance and composition of aquatic communities caused by stressors such as phosphorus, sediments and water withdrawal; E. coli benchmarks to identify low levels of waterborne pathogen occurrence; and modelling to simulate the effects of implementation of BMPs on water quality.

Impact on decision making Water quality standards may have an important role in defining environmental outcomes for some watershed management programs, prioritizing BMP options, and setting risk thresholds.

Defining environmental outcomes As an example, NAESI research identified standards for nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended sediments in streams to protect aquatic life. If these standards are achieved, then excessive algal growth and adverse effects caused by excessive sediments (for example, infilling of fish spawning beds and abrasion to fish and insects) should rarely be observed.

Prioritizing BMP options Although BMPs bring about tangible benefits at the individual farm level, achieving any particular IPS or APS will require a collective approach to BMP within a particular geographic area: that is, all

91 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

landowners within a watershed may need to work together to attain ideal water quality. NAESI research identified an approach to guide selection of the most effective type of BMP and/or its location, thereby helping tailor water programs. For example, research in the Raisin River watershed in Ontario showed that 30‐metre riparian buffer strips would be required to meet the IPS for total suspended solids. If this option is viewed as impractical in the short term, NAESI presented an approach for determining APS that showed implementation of other BMPs could move the current situation toward the ideal situation (IPS), thereby reducing impacts to the environment.

Setting risk thresholds The National Agri‐Environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program (NAHARP), led by Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada, uses science‐based agri‐environmental information at a national scale, along with Census of Agriculture data, to develop a series of agri‐environmental indicators. The indicators are mostly risk‐based and assess the environmental performance of the agriculture sector. NAESI results can be used to help define risk categories for many of the indicators.

The Science Behind the Standards More than 150 experts, including 120 Environment Canada researchers and scientists, developed the standards. Experts evaluated the most important environmental issues facing our agricultural landscapes. They then used the latest science in the four key areas (air, water, pesticides and biodiversity) to determine the desired conditions that to support environmentally sustainable agriculture. Partners and stakeholders (including provincial agencies, non‐government organizations, and farm organizations) contributed input to the development of the standards. All standards went through a rigorous peer‐review process that involved other experts in the field and was overseen by an independent evaluator. The NAESI standards are unique from other environmental guidelines. They were designed with an understanding of the importance in achieving balance between environmental sustainability and the need to cultivate our land for our foods and other agricultural products. Two types of environmental performance standards were developed. Ideal Performance Standards outline the ideal environmental state needed for ecosystem health. Achievable Performance Standards predict the environmental gains if alternative land management practices are used. Together, these two types of standards can guide policy decisions and improve farming practices.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider The Benefits in developing our own The standards offer decision‐makers ways to measure the concept, the conclusion environmental performance of the agriculture sector, guide on‐farm of the literature source environmental management, and improve our understanding of the or the project results) relationship between agriculture and the environment. The agricultural industry could benefit by growing a more environmentally sustainable industry, a reputation for environmental

92 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

responsibility, and green marketing opportunities. And all benefit from a healthier environment, better quality of life, and the conservation of our natural resources for future generations.

NAESI’s contribution to a greater understanding of the interactions between agriculture and the environment provides a valuable foundation for further research and agri‐environmental management. In conjunction with information on the economic costs of changes to environmental quality, NAESI standards can help optimize or balance environmental and economic endpoints for a given range of land use scenarios. Overall, NAESI water standards have the potential to inform agri‐environmental decision making, bringing environmental, economic and social benefits to Canadians.

Benefits:  Environment: moves us towards more sustainable agricultural activities  Economic: identifies areas where BMPs are most likely to be effective in improving environmental quality  Social: contributes to sustainable agriculture and a healthier environment leading to a better quality of life for the agricultural community and Canadians in general

Further information: Optional

93 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Electronic Product Code (EPC) as the means to uniquely identify any object in the food supply chain Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Ralph Tröger e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is -x- Other, specify: Standard______based on) Focus (please mark __ Information needs of Businesses the competence __ Information needs of consumers domains the __ Information needs of policy information does -x- Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, focus on; multiple storage, communication etc. of information) marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation -x- Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components -x- Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Intersectoral applicable

Source http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal (overview about all EPCglobal (where to find; e.g. standards, i.e. Architecture Framework) Literature source, http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal/tds/ (Tag Data Standard) project name and web site, etc.) Content with . Definition: A common technical framework for globally unique identifiers for project relevance use with Auto-ID technologies such as RFID, 1D and 2D bar codes . The EPC supports a family or federation of unique identifiers and these can be used at all levels of the GS1 EPC Network architecture. The EPC, its

representations and schema are defined in the EPCglobal Tag Data Standard. Typically an EPC includes an EPC Manager Number (such as a GS1 Company Prefix), sometimes includes an object class identification and always includes a serial number or serial reference. This allows each object to be uniquely identified. . Relevant examples of EPC identifiers for SmartAgriFood: o Serialized Global Trade Item Number ( products, boxes, etc.) o Serial Shipping Container Code ( cartons, pallets, container, etc.) o Global Returnable Asset Identifier ( reusable asset, etc.) o Global Document Type Identifier ( unique identity for specific documents) . Illustration (EPC/RFID converter service tool offered by GS1 Germany):

94 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The figure displays the translation from an identifier (here: serialized GTIN) which you can find in plain text beneath any barcode into the EPC representation forms. If converted into binary format, the hexadecimal memory content of a RFID transponder equates to the following 96 bits: 001100000011010011110100111001001110010001100001101001111100000000000000000000000000000001111011 Note: an EPC is independent from the data carrier, i.e. you do not necessarily need to utilize RFID. Lessons learned . Numerous EPC/RFID rollouts in various industries (retail, apparel, medical, for project (very automotive) enhancing efficiency and quality  adaption to our cause? important; what . Globally accepted/ well-proven set of standards we should . EPC is the basis for utilization of the EPC network consider in developing our Example: EPC tag with EPC in plain text (“Pure Identity”), encoded in bar code own concept, the and the integrated RFID chip (along with the official EPC logo) conclusion of the literature source or the project results)

Further (I) RFID tag placing: There are plenty of opportunities to associate RFID tags to information: objects used in the food supply chain. The following images give an overview (i.e., RFID tag on cheese, integrated in a pallet, integrated in a tray, integrated in packaging, as an adhesive label)

95 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

(Please note again that companies do not necessarily need RFID in order to work with EPC. Nevertheless, RFID is the most appropriate data carrier for it.)

(II) Position in the EPCglobal Architecture Framework

96 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS) – the standard for enhancing visibility (i.e., “what”, “when”, “where” and “why”) in supply chains Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Ralph Tröger e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please __ Expert experience, specify who: ______mark what -x- Other, specify: Standard______the information is based on) Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please __ Information needs of consumers mark the __ Information needs of policy competence -x- Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus -x- Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) -x- IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Intersectoral applicable

Source http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal (overview about all EPCglobal standards, i.e. (where to Architecture Framework) find; e.g. http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal/epcis (EPCIS Standard) Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content . Definition: The EPC Information Services (EPCIS) v1.0 standard defines standard with project interfaces for the capture and query of serial-level master data and event relevance information consisting not only of the “what”, “where” and “ when” dimensions – but also allowing for semantic enrichment with the “why” dimension. In the context

of a supply chain, the 'why' dimension might indicate the business step (such as 'receiving' or 'shipping') or disposition (e.g. 'in transit'). EPCIS provides a standard for the exchange of physical visibility information based on the Electronic Product Code (EPC). . Relevance for SmartAgriFood (Use cases):

97 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

o Tracking . “Where is my product now?” . Most recent observation of given physical asset(s) o Tracing . “What is the history of where has my product has been?” . Multiple observations of given physical asset(s) through time and space o Pedigree . Who has handled or had ownership of this product? o Product Authentication . Is this product real or could it be a counterfeit? o Product Recall . Notify a product’s current custodians of a potential product . Ensure that all instances are returned

Lessons . Already utilized by a considerable number of companies (especially in the retail learned for and pharmaceutical sector) project (very . So far, implementation mainly intra-company (though “real” benefits are expected important; in inter-company usage) what we . Globally accepted/ well-proven set of standards should . Depending on the type, an EPCIS event consists of the following data: consider in o EPC(s) developing o Timestamp our own o Read Point concept, the o Business Location (“warehouse B-12”, e.g.) conclusion o Business step (“receiving”, “shipping”, e.g.) of the o Disposition (“in transit”, e.g.) literature o Business Transaction Type (“purchase order 1234”, e.g.) source or  Thus, fine-granular data available in real-time or for later analysis, the project respectively. results)

Further (I) EPCIS data exchange concept information :

(II) Position in the EPCglobal Architecture Framework

98 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

99 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: EPC/RFID for Fresh Meat Container Logistics Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Angela Schillings-Schmitz e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the _ Other: Standard information is based on) Focus (please _x_ Information needs of Businesses mark the _x_ Information needs of consumers competence __ Information needs of policy domains the _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, information storage, communication etc. of information) does focus on; __ Information organization for farm cooperation multiple marks _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or possible) between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _x_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: meat and meat products REWE and its own processing plant (Brandenburg)

Source Specify: Best practice case study document of GS1 http://www.prozeus.de/prozeus/daten/broschueren/rfid/prozeus_doc02983.htm

Content with project Approach relevance Transport containers were tagged with EPC/RFID transponders operating in the UHF frequency range. These tags were automatically read upon completion of

commissioning as well as on passing through dock doors in the shipping/goods receiving process. Automation of data capture in this manner equates to a reduction of effort and costs in the various process steps.

Goals • Application of RFID technology in the pre-packed meat and sausage supply chain: from the supplier to the REWE distribution center to the supermarkets • Identify the potential for optimization in the supply chain with an emphasis on logistics

100 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons learned RFID (radio frequency identification) employs electromagnetic waves to transmit for project (very information between a transponder (or “tag”), serving as data carrier, and a reader. important; what As an automatic data capture technology, the advantages of RFID are considerable. First and foremost, line-of-sight contact is not required for data we should capture, which means that objects within cartons or on the other side of a pallet consider in can be identified. Additionally, identification rates of up to several hundred objects developing our per second are possible, which expedites the picking, commissioning and own concept, receiving of both large and complex shipments. Furthermore, transmission ranges the conclusion of up to several meters allow for dependable areal coverage at read points such as of the literature dock doors, commissioning and storage facilities. Also, data stored on an RFID tag may be updated or amended with additional information relevant to the handling of source or the a shipment or the shelf life of a product. project results) Technical and organizational requirements: Process-oriented application of technology: A substantial success factor in RFID projects is the selection and installation of the appropriate technology. This is why the project team analyzed both on-site environmental conditions and process flows. This allowed for the development of a requirement profile for the RFID systems and, in turn, the implementation of the optimal hardware: RFID gates, handhelds und EPCglobal compliant UHF transponders. Circulation of fixed and collapsible E2 meat crates: Conventional fixed-side meat crates in E2 format comprised the brunt of the container pool in this project. Additionally, in close coordination with government officials, collapsible crates were outfitted with RFID transponders and put into circulation. These containers served to transport prepacked meat in a closed loop between trading partners. Standardized information in compliance with GS1 and EPCglobal: Even though the pilot project involved a closed system, there could only be one, standardized solution: the internationally established standards of GS1 and EPCglobal. For unambiguous identification, each crate was assigned a globally unique Electronic Product Code (EPC), in which a Global Returnable Asset Identifier (GRAI) was encoded according to the GS1 Standards. The GRAI was developed specially for returnable containers, and is already widely used in barcoded form. This enabled the identification of meat crates across different points in the supply chain, including container return logistics. The underlying data model for saving event-driven data was set up in according to EPCglobal’s EPCIS standard.

Benefits: UHF RFID transponders in conformance with EPCglobal standards were able to prove themselves in the field, even though the high degree of moisture in the fresh food logistic sector presented a challenge. Despite the high proportion of water in meat and sausages, the transponders had a read rate of almost 100%. Even the frequently required washing of the transport crates had no negative impact on the ability to automatically and reliably identify transponders in the field. EPCglobal’s EPCIS standard is ideal for storing the events logged at individual read points across the supply chain and back again, in return logistics. The positive results of the case study, “EPC/RFID for Fresh Meat Container Logistics” speak for themselves, and should encourage companies to undertake further EPC/RFID pilot projects, in order to structure their own processes more efficiently. Further See webpage! information:

101 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Agritool EUREKA Project Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Attila Berczeli e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CBHU

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the X Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks X Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) X Information organization for farm cooperation X Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: http://www.eurekanetwork.org/projects/success‐stories (where to find; e.g. Agritool: http://www.eurekanetwork.org/project/‐/id/3514 Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The general objective of the Project was to develop an integrated system, based on information and communication technologies that shall enable the automatic management of data during the whole supply chain to assure the origin and safety of food products. The specific objectives of the Project were the followings: a. to support the producers in the supply chain process with advanced systems for processing the information, allowing management of real‐time decisions, and rapid response to any event occurring in the supply chain; b. to provide food chain operators, in particular small and medium‐size enterprises, with a low cost solution to improve process control and documentation management and the traceability of products. A basic requirement shall be low installation and operating costs;

102 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

c. to avoid fraud and sanitary problems, by means of a system that provides information in appropriate time to make adequate decisions, enabling rapid alert and product withdrawal; d. to provide consumers and the other participants in the food supply chain with all quality‐related information and to demonstrate the safety and quality of the products. e. to develop traceability system and to create brands for traditional Hungarian food products with special regard to the ones having Denominations of Origin. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; The project created the Agritool software, which can be used by a what we should consider mobile tool, and it enables stakeholders along the agrifood chain the in developing our own automatic data collection, recording, processing and preservation and concept, the conclusion ensures the information flow between stakeholders and hence of the literature source guarantees the origin identification and traceability, and the safety of or the project results) the product. The results are also important, because the European Union requires in REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002 that the “Food and feed business operators shall have in place systems and procedures to identify the other businesses to which their products have been supplied” and need for traceability and this system can be used to support the integrity of information used EU labelling of traditional national food products. It is helping the improvement of the information and communication technologies in the agrifood sector. Other results of the projects: • Tr@zitec web‐site (based on the Agritool software), • Development of database and modules of the traceability and marking models. Further information: Optional

103 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e‐mail: Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the competence domains the information does focus __ Information needs of consumers on; multiple marks possible) Sector __ Food: food composition

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project European Food Information Resource (EuroFIR) Project name and web site, etc.) www.eurofir.net

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance This project is funded by the European Commission's Research Directorate General under the "Food Quality and Safety Priority" of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. It is a network which involved 49 partners from universities, research institues and small‐to‐medium sized enterprises from 27 european countries that provides food composition databases (FCDB) and facilitates interchange of food composition data through an internet platform. One of the key achievements of the EuroFIR project is the establishment of the EuroFIR AISBL. The purpose of this Association is the development, management, publication and exploitation of food composition data, and the promotion of international cooperation and harmonization through improved data quality, database searchability, standards development, dissemination and training for all users and stakeholders.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider It should be use in the health domain to prevent food diseases due to in developing our own allergy to a component of the food. concept, the conclusion of the literature source

104 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa or the project results)

Further information: Optional

105 Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e-mail: Project Partner: NKUA

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market (please mark what the software) information is based on) __ Expert experience, specify who: ______Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the _X_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the _X_ Information needs of consumers information does focus _X_ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) _X_ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: Smart Farming __ Food, specify product: ______

Source [1]. European Project – Future Farm (where to find; e.g. www.futurefarm.eu Literature source, project [2]. CuteLoop Research Project / State – of – the – Art – Analysis name and web site, etc.) available at www.cuteloop.eu

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Farm Management Information System is mandatory functionality for Smart Farming. The steps that have to be followed in order to gain specific knowledge are 1) capturing data i.e soil, temperature, costs 2) analyzing those data 3) accessing them 4) aggregate and manage them 5) decision making and finally 6) inserting data into archive for further use. In order to exchange useful information between different parties, we have to clarify certain group of drivers. Those are:  Climate changes  Demographic alterations  Energy waste & Environmental Impact  Demands on quality of productions

106  Innovative drivers  Policies  Economy

Some of the requirements of FMIS defined by Murakami et al (2007) are :  Designing it in line with farmers’ needs.  Ergonomic user interface, which can be parameterized depending on farmers’ knowledge of technology.  Free willing whenever a farmer wants to have.  Introduction of expert knowledge  Scalability  Low cost

[1] divides knowledge managements systems into three levels: 1) macro level, which refers external parameters and may affect more than one farm, 2) farm level, which includes information inside of one’s farm and 3)micro level, which is related with single fields. Until now, the problem of knowledge management can be analyzed in two directions a) huge amount of data are produced b) the aforementioned levels lacks of interoperability. Stakeholders demand to be developed an appropriate decision supporting system. What is recommended is the usage of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), which provides with the opportunity to integrate heterogeneous systems and manage data exchange effectively. Combining SOA with Event Driven Agents (EDA) we can handle asynchronous communication and make our system more flexible.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; In order to manage information inside and outside a farm, we what we should consider have to define the data that should concealed to stakeholders in developing our own concept, the conclusion and after deciding what to transfer, we must find a suitable way of the literature source to forward the right information to the right stakeholders. or the project results) SmartAgriFood could use the existing architecture of [1] in order to facilitate the development of information management and decision making. We have to consider that the demands change continuously, which means that FMIS is not a static ontology and must not be handled in this way. In addition, a farmer wants to trust the information he gets, which means that security and integrity issues have to be taken into account. ESB is a promising architecture that combines SOA and EDA, supports XML and aims at providing with services and

107 messages effectively. Content management a critical issue and must be developed with thorough thoughts since it is the major demand of a farmer who will use SmartFarming for his cultivations.

Further information: Optional

108 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Flexible tag datalogger for food logistics

Provider of this information: Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background _X_ Literature ___ Project ___ System product (eg market software) ___ Expert experience, specify who: ______Other, specify: ______

Focus ___ Information needs of businesses ___ Information needs of consumers ___ Information needs of policy ___ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation ___ Chain communication organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) ___ System organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) ___ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT components ___ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______X_ Food, specify product: ______

Source Mattoli, V.; Mazzolai, B.; Mondini, A., Zampolli, S.; Dario, P. (2010). Flexible tag datalogger for food logistics. Sensors and Actuators, Vol 162, (pp. 316–323).

Content with project Goods, like perishable food (milk, fish, meat, and fruit) or high quality relevance products (e.g. wine), as well as medical products, require maintenance in determinate conditions to preserve the quality during shipping, handling and vending. In many cases, for example, the goods must be re- frigerated or frozen during the transport and it is important to maintain the temperature in a safe range during the entire trip. Nowadays this problem becomes more important considering that very often foods are shipped for long distances from farms or from processing plants to distribution centers and to final users, such as wine shops and restaurants. The paper describes the design, development, and testing of a Flexible Tag Datalogger (FTD) for improving food and goods logistics during transport, storage and vending. This miniaturized device integrates three sensors (temperature, humidity and light) and a microcontroller, which manages the sensors in a power safe mode and records the

109 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

ranges of the measures on its memory. The transmission of data is based on an infrared communication (as alternative to the RFID technology), making the device able to communicate with the most common personal devices, such as Smartphone or PDA with integrated infrared port.

Lessons learned for The device could be applied to different scenarios, improving the logis- project tic and safety of the perishable food during the logistic, storage and market phases. New versions of the device, using a different storage system and with better performances (also in term of memory) are under development.

Further information

110 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: FlexSMELL

Provider of this information: Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background ___ Literature _X_ Project ___ System product (eg market software) ___ Expert experience, specify who: ______Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______X_ Food, specify product: ______

Source FLEXSMELL: Gas sensors on flexible substrates for wireless applications http://www.flexsmell.eu/ Content with project The FlexSMELL concept is to realize a hybrid (organic-inorganic) very relevance low-cost, ultra low-power olfaction system based on bio-receptor and implemented on a flexible substrate. Such a system is to be compatible with wireless read-out, setting the ground for the future development of smart sensing RFID tags. The FlexSMELL technology platform will be in principle suitable for different applications with the main ones envisaged for the in the field of logistics for the monitoring of perishable goods along their transport and storing, through smart packaging solutions. Lessons learned for Eventually this effort will leverage the strength of the EU in organic project electronics and micro-technologies for sensing applications as well as their integration into systems providing services to the individuals and to the community in the areas of food control through smart packaging, but also health, environment, communication and security. Further information

111 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Food safety

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. FoodTracE Project – EU Sixth Framework Programme: Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance The aim of the FOODTRACE concerted action programme is to present a generic framework for traceability that can be applied to any food supply chain and accommodate the complexities of cross‐supply chain interaction. The framework must facilitate a system or systems for achieving: __Unambiguous linking of food items, ingredients or food process outcomes and transactions back to an identified source. __The facility to access appropriate processing, condition, handling or transaction information relating to the food item or ingredient at any defined point in the supply chain. __Flexibility to accommodate national and food‐specific requirements with respect to food

112 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

law and other regulatory constraints and facilitate the realisation of traceability systems in both developed and developing countries. __Flexibility to accommodate the range of identification‐for‐traceability solutions, from rudimentary, paper‐based systems to advanced information and communications technology (ICT) structures, but with migration strategies identified to allow transition to more armonised traceability structures. __Management of complexity through appropriate partitioning of information and functions, providing a platform for minimal intervention strategies for systems development and retention of crucial supply chain structures and procedures. __Process development strategy and methodology to facilitate foundations for addedvalue enhancement of internal and external supply chain processes, centred upon quality, waste reduction and efficiency.

While the requirements for traceability are centred upon needs for safety and regulatory compliance the driver for implementing such systems should reside in process improvement and added‐value exploitation of system components introduced to facilitate traceability. With the requirement to accommodate change and the demands imposed by global trade developments and consumer expectations an approach to traceability founded upon process development and a generic framework for linking items passing through supply chain processes makes sense. Managing the complexity of supply chain and cross‐supply chain traceability can be, in part, reduced by adopting a harmonised approach to identification of food entities and any associated packaging within the various internal and external supply chain processes. This is being achieved to some degree in traceability solutions that are adopting a standardised approach to numbering and identification systems such as the EAN.UCC system which is the most used system in the world today. A range of guidelines are available that promote this approach. Notably these include the Traceability of Fish – Application of EAN.UCC Standards (EAN International), Traceability of Beef Guidelines (EAN International), Fresh Produce Traceability Guidelines (EAN International) and Traceability Implementation Guideline (EAN International) project. The EAN.UCC identification system is widely applied and constitutes a very significant foundation for harmonised traceability systems. Even where the will is recognised to move to a more harmonised system of numbering and identification there remains a need to accommodate the legacy, and the inertia this presents, through appropriate migration strategy, supported by sound process support structures to allow all stakeholders, large and small, to achieve the migration target without compromising business performance. Ideally the migration should enhance business performance. Such needs have to be recognised and accommodated within any generic framework for traceability. Based upon these considerations the FOODTRACE initiative has sought to define a framework that can accommodate legacy systems and, through appropriate business imperatives propose a strategy and methodology for migrating to more harmonised, addedvalue systems commensurate with 21st century needs in respect of globalised production, movement and safety of food items and the proliferation of electronic commerce. The intention is not to impose a particular technological solution. The framework simply identifies the component considerations for building solutions: __Identification and item‐attendant and item‐associated data / information. __Item‐attendant data carriers. __Data transfer and storage. __Data and information communications. Identification is about being able to unambiguously distinguish one item from another and any associated data or information. Data in this context is any quantitative or qualitative features expressed in a form that be suitably handled, interpreted and used in context to generate meaningful information. Item‐attendant data relates to data that is attached to,

113 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

contained within, or otherwise accompanies an item within a suitable item‐attendant data carrier. Such data may include an identifier or identifiers, meta‐data for describing other data and / or data files that can be used for process and traceability support. With developments in higher capacity data carriers, such as two‐dimensional bar codes, matrix codes, composite codes and various forms of radiofrequency identification (RFID) data carriers the item‐ attendant portable data files can offer wider opportunities for process and traceability solutions. Item‐associated data / information relates to data or information that is relevant to a particular item or items but is held elsewhere than on the item concerned but linked to the item through a particular identifier. The framework‐defined component considerations will vary according to need, particularly where uptake of technology is indicated. Here there are issues concerning the level of technological integration and appropriateness of technologies in particular situations. Cost versus benefit will have a significant impact upon the realisation of solutions. However, by distinguishing the core identification and data support elements for achieving traceability and added‐value process support the facility is provided for selecting technology appropriate to needs (see Data capture Guidelines). Underpinning the framework is a technology‐independent foundation defining the needs for identification, data and information flows that can facilitate traceability. At the most basic level simple forms of identification based upon human‐readable numbers and written labels, communicated by hand can fulfil the regulatory requirement for one‐up‐one‐down traceability. However, in recognising business progression as a necessary goal for competitive supply chain functionality, with imperatives for increased visibility, velocity and value, more efficient and effective ways have to be considered for achieving the same traceability function and at the same time yielding added‐value process enhancement and competitive advantage. The framework seeks to identify the structural features and facilities for achieving such progression and migration, as appropriate, from basic paper‐based compliance to fully supported automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) and ICT systems for process support and traceability.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; The need for traceability in food supply chains is clear. With growing attention to what we global trade and expansion of supply chain networks the need for a harmonised should standards supported systems for traceability is clear. The mandatory requirement for consider in all businesses operating within European Union food supply chains to implement developing traceability systems by January 1, 2005 is also clear. However, the means of satisfying our own such needs at an e‐business supported level is not so clear given the considerations concept, the presented in respect of a generic framework fortraceability. While it is possible to conclusion accommodate the basic requirements for one‐up‐onedown traceability using paper‐

114 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa of the based systems the need can be seen for raising European participation and leadership literature in e‐business supported supply chain systems. Considerations in respect of the source or component parts of the generic framework reveal that such goals are achievable given the project sufficient collaboration and attention to fundamental problems concerning the results) development and adoption of standardised approaches to satisfying system requirements. Bearing in mind the January 1, 2005 deadline for European compliance for traceability, and similar requirements within the United States, the need can be seen for actions directed at assisting businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises (SMEs), in their approach to implementing basic systems. Such an approach also requires attention to process developments that add‐value and competitive edge to their businesses while also facilitating traceability. The traceability component requires attention to standards and the prospect of migrating to a system of umbering and identification that allows fully open‐systems application. This requires the ecognition or development of a standardised approach to implementing a traceability infrastructure. The nearest system available for achieving such a goal within the food supply chain is clearly the EAN.UCC system.

Despite the value and potential offered by the EAN.UCC system usage of the system effectively requires membership of EAN/UCC, which currently stands at about one million world‐wide, after some 30 years of usage7. While the potential can be seen for widening the membership to encompass more businesses, including more of the larger population of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), issues including awareness, alignment with existing in‐supply chain systems, cost of membership and appropriateness of system provisions to meet their requirements need to be addressed . To move forward with EAN.UCC as the target system for wider usage requires attention to these issues and needs for further development, including wider collaboration and research. Not least of these issues is the issue of membership, possibly requiring deliberations at national levels for appropriate support or patronage.

Arising from the framework considerations and the FOODTRACE activities various needs and associated actions can be distinguished for underpinning a universal electronic systems approach to traceability that is capable of embracing legacy systems, be it an EAN.UCC development or a development based upon an ISO standard for accommodating different traceability schemes. From the standards perspective the requirements devolve into a need to cover:

Identification (including both primary and secondary identifiers), data structures, data carriers and data capture.

__Data / information transfer through to and including e‐business networking. The latter may be accommodated through developments in ebXML structures. The former constitutes a larger problem because of the need to accommodate different identification systems and additional requirements in respect of identifiers, data capture strategies, and adoption of additional data carriers. Between the two is also a need to facilitate a universal data appliance protocol.

The framework and FOODTRACE activities have revealed particular areas in which further developments are required in support of process enhancement and traceability functions.

These areas included:

__Primary identifiers in the form of biological markers for species and unique

115 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

identification at animal, plant or other biological entity level and the linkage with secondary, data carrier, identification within a defined hierarchy of item and itemcarrier structures.

__Inter‐nodal data capture techniques and technologies to support identification and traceability needs within the node‐to‐node delivery or movement of food entities, including sensory‐based data collection and decision support systems.

__Intra‐nodal process support in respect of batch modelling and identification and techniques for low cost marking or data carrier implementation, including high speed marking techniques.

__Developments and prospective standardisation with respect to identifiers and coding structures, drawing particular attention to the significant legacy and on‐going development with respect to the EAN.UCC system of numbering, identification and data transfer together with developments with respect to coding structures and data carriers required for information sets and access control for cross‐supply chain traceability.

__Network and web‐enabled communication strategies for accommodating complexity in cross‐supply chain traceability, drawing attention to ebXML and other XML variants and the need for harmonisation.

__Web‐enabled communication strategies and technologies for provenance on the content of food products.

__Consumer support technologies and techniques for food information and traceability, including improved methods for item and batch identification. These developments, together with prospective developments concerning standardisation and accommodation of data capture needs, will require appropriate collaboration between supply chain stakeholders, equipment manufacturers and standards providers / developers.

A sixth framework integrated project proposal, FOODTRACE Plus, is geared to achieving these goals.

Further information:

116 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark __ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Food safety

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI): Literature http://www.mygfsi.com/ source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) is a non‐profit making foundation, created under Belgian law in May 2000. The daily management of GFSI is undertaken by The Consumer Goods Forum. GFSI benchmarks existing food standards against food safety criteria, and also looks to develop mechanisms to exchange information in the supply chain, to raise consumer awareness and to review existing good retail practices.

Primarily Benchmarking Within GFSI, benchmarking is a “procedure by which a food safety‐related scheme is compared to the GFSI Guidance Document,” a copy of which can be found on

117 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

www.globalfoodsafetyinitiative.com. The process is intended to be executed in an independent, unbiased, technically proficient and transparent manner. The GFSI Board Benchmarking a scheme successfully means that all recognized schemes have a common foundation of requirements which should provide consistent results, in regard to the common requirements applied during the audit, but the benchmarked schemes cannot be considered as equal.

Reductions in audits through common acceptance Under the umbrella of GFSI, 8 major retailers came to a common acceptance of the GFSI benchmarked food safety schemes in June 2007.

Each scheme has now aligned itself with common criteria defined by food safety experts from the food business, with the objective of making food production and manufacture as safe as possible. As a result, this will also drive cost efficiency in the supply chain and reduce the duplication of audits. The GFSI vision of ‘once certified, accepted everywhere’ became a reality. In addition to the original retailers Carrefour, Tesco, ICA, Metro, Migros, Ahold, Wal‐Mart and Delhaize who agreed to reduce duplication in the supply chain through the common acceptance of any of the four GFSI benchmarked schemes, many other food service, retail and manufacturing companies have now joined this approach.

While GFSI encourages businesses within the retail, food service and manufacturing sectors to choose GFSI recognized schemes, these businesses can make individual choices whether or not to implement the program. Whilst choosing a GFSI recognized scheme may be a large investment for a business initially, the number of audits is expected to be reduced significantly after implementation. Additionally, an outside customer may require specific audits, but under the GFSI framework only one scheme would be required.

Vision Under the umbrella of The Consumer Goods Forum, the vision for the organization is ‘safe food for consumers everywhere’. By drawing on the expertise of its international stakeholders working in various sectors, GFSI is able to have a truly global approach when tackling food safety issues.

Mission Since it was launched in May 2000 following a number of major food safety scares, the GFSI has aimed to: “Provide continuous improvement in food safety management systems to ensure confidence in the delivery of safe food to consumers worldwide”

The GFSI objectives are to: 1. Reduce food safety risks by delivering equivalence and convergence between effective food safety management systems 2. Manage cost in the global food system by eliminating redundancy and improving operational efficiency 3. Develop competencies and capacity building in food safety to create consistent and effective global food systems 4. Provide a unique international stakeholder platform for collaboration, knowledge exchange and networking

GFSI Recognised Schemes Manufacturing Schemes:  BRC Global Standard Version 5  Dutch HACCP (Option B)

118 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

 FSSC 22000  Global Aquaculture Alliance BAP Issue 2 (GAA Seafood Processing Standard)  Global Red Meat Standard Version 3  International Food Standard Version 5  SQF 2000 Level 2  Synergy 22000 Primary Production Schemes:  CanadaGAP  GlobalG.A.P IFA Scheme V3  o General Regulations: V3.1_Nov09 (all scopes) o Fruit and Vegetables: 3.0‐2_Sep07 o Livestock Base: 3.0‐4_Mar10 o Aquaculture ‐ V1.02_March10  SQF 1000 Level 2 Primary and Manufacturing Scheme:  PrimusGFS Benchmarking to GFSI ensures the core of these standards are equivalent.

The benchmarking process was not designed to create a single global standard, but rather to allow innovation and competitive development between standard owners whilst meeting a core set of requirements.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; Business Case for GFSI what we should Benefits for suppliers: consider in  Certificated companies are more disciplined, more efficient and more profitable. developing our own  Certificated companies show equivalence of process across countries and concept, the continents. conclusion of the  The GFSI recognised standards are accessible and are shared by many. literature source or  Certificated companies will have a legal defence in place. the project Benefits for retailers: results)  The GFSI recognised standards provide effective shared risk management tools for the retailers brand protection and product integrity is improved.

 Certification enables simpler buying.

Benefits for governments:

 Business is promoting compliance with legislation

 Business is self regulating and is driving continuous improvement and best practice

 Business seeks to share its progress and understand concerns

119 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

 Benefits for all:

Less duplication:

 Continuous improvement in the standards and their content

 Healthy competition between existing schemes

 Cost efficiency in the supply chain

 Comparable audit approach and outcomes

 Improved consumer confidence and safer food

Further information:

120 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: global product classification for fruits and vegetables/ dairy Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Dora Lanzinger e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __X Other, specify: __Standards______

Focus (please mark the _x_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: __fruits and vegetables/ milk______

Source (where to find; e.g. http://www.gs1.org/1/productssolutions/gdsn/gpc/browser/index.html Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project Retailers and suppliers need GPC, because they can compare factors like relevance quality, size, ripeness and origin globally.

Definition: The Global Product Classification (GPC) is a global standardized classification for international order processes. It will replace the standard-goods classification on the 1/1/2012. Each product has a unique code and each attribute, such us ripeness, origin, size and organic base, has a specific code. Each of these attribute codes make up the full product code. The retailers want to use these codes for ordering. These codes are available online, so the suppliers can access them. Illustration:

Lessons learned for GPC defines single products as well as qualities with a special number project (very important; system. With fruit and vegetables it describes the type, for example, the

121 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa what we should consider place of origin, the cultivation method and the degree of ripeness. The in developing our own aim is to optimize the ordering by using uniform product names. The concept, the conclusion GPC provides statistics for effective Category Management and of the literature source assortment analysis. The GPC makes electronic order processes, or the project results) auctions and the search for new products easier. Category managers use them for the assortment analysis, continuance guidance, planning and sales statistics.

It is now possible to retrieve product data (based on category) from the master data pool.

Further information: The aim is to optimise the procurement by using uniform product names.

122 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: GS1 Guideline “specialities in the logistic of prepacked meat and meat products” Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Angela Schillings-Schmitz e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) _x Other: Standard Guiedeline Focus (please mark the _x_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: prepacked meat & meat products

Source Specify: Webpage for the meat business at GS1 Germany homepage http://www.gs1- germany.de/branchen/fleisch/standards_anwenden/index_ger.html Content with project Description about which informations are needed at the interface relevance between packer and retailer and which GS1 Standard hast to be used to encode and communicate the defined informations. Lessons learned for The guideline summarises common logistic definitions, all needed project (very important; informations regarding products, futher product details, traceability what we should consider information and origin, identification keys like article number (GTIN) in developing our own differentiated for beef, pork and other animal species, minced meat and concept, the conclusion processed/convenience products. It describes, which different GS1 of the literature source AutoID-Standards and encoded informations (barcode as EAN-13 or GS1 or the project results) 128) should be used for the different hirachies of items (consumer item, trade item, carton, pallet). It gives exaples for events which require for creating an new article number (GTIN) as well as rules regarding how to pack and label pallets with different articles, lots and best beforde dates and how to calculate maturities. Further information:

123 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: GS1 PROZEUS Practice Project „From Stable to Table - Transparency in the Process Chain of Pork” Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Angela Schillings-Schmitz e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other: Standard Guiedeline Focus (please mark the _x_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus _x_ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) _x_ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: pigs______x_ Food, specify product: porc

Source Specify: Webpage for the meat business at GS1 Germany homepage http://www.prozeus.de/ Content with project Use of worldwide unique GS1 Identifications keys (GLN, GTIN and SSCC) relevance and standardised electronic data interchance of quality, slaughtering and traceability data by EANCOM®2002 from the stage of piglet production up to the processing plant of the retailer. Lessons learned for The use of GS1 Standards on the red side of the value chain for meat project (very important; and meat products rised during recent years. This upgrowth was mainly what we should consider caused by the the beef labeling regulations of the EU in succession of in developing our own the BSE crisis. concept, the conclusion Object of the practice project, which startet 2007 was, to work out an of the literature source e-business solution based on open and worldwide accepted GS1 or the project results) standards for traceability of pork. The solution comes up with the ongoing requirements regarding consumer protection as well as the legal requirements of the EU Regulation No 178/2002. It enables an efficient electronic data exchange between all partners and ensures the store of these data in a central based database. Through the use of uniform identification and communication standards along the whole process chain, the industry will create more transparency and enhance consumer confidence in the long term.

124 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The forward-looking e-business solution takes into account both the specific requirements of the breeding and livestock association and the meat industry: standardized and reliable data and an efficient traceability system bring transparancy to the whole chain. In the case of a recall all batches of a covered product, the used raw material materials and other products of the same origin can be fully identified and recalled with a minimum of costs and error-free from the market. Thus, meat industry and authorities jointly guarantess a maximum of food safety and avoids emotional reaktion of the consumer. For the pilot project a solution with open interfaces has been developed which is transferable to other companies, process chains and even other industries. The use of Global Location Number (GLN) , Global Trade Item numer (GTIN) and Serial Shipping Container Code( SSCC) ensures the wordwide unique identification of all actors (piglet producer, producer of food stuff, farmer, transporter, slaughterhouse, processor), products and shippings. By developing sector-specific messages for all stages all required and inforamtions (e.g. orders, registration for slaughtering, feedback of slaughtering data) can be exchanged in standardised data types (ORDERS, DESADV, RECADV) from now.

Further information:

125 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: GS1 DataBar Implementation Case Study (Feile Foods) Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Angela Schillings-Schmitz e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) _ Other: Standard Focus (please mark the _x_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the _x_ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _x_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: meat and meat products (Processing plant Feile Food of )

Source Specify: Best practice case study document of GS1 http://www.gs1ie.org/sid/1428 Content with project The Pork Dioxin Contamination Crisis at the end of 2008 led to the total recall of relevance Irish pork products, cost the sector €1 billion and highlighted how farm-to-fork traceability was a broken chain that needed to be fixed. A year later at a joint GS1 Ireland and FSAI Meat Traceability conference in Dublin, the various parties involved in regulating the food and pork industry admitted there was nothing to stop a repeat of the disaster.

The GS1 DataBar will significantly enhance traceability in a complex supply chain like the meat industry. Harnessing next-generation barcode standards, it ensures a more rigorous supply chain for the tracking and tracing of goods. Recent recall events in Ireland have made it a timely project with particular significance for the meat industry. Lessons learned for Implementation at every step along the supply chain, from farmers to project (very important; meat processors and then to retailers, the DataBar could facilitate a what we should consider more targeted and less expensive product recall in the event of a contamination crisis. in developing our own With standardised scanning solutions and the GS1 DataBar available concept, the conclusion at all stages of the supply chain, downstream operators would have of the literature source critical traceability information available in their own IT systems and or the project results) be quickly able to identify contaminated batches. If a product slips through and makes it to the shelves, additional product information encoded in the DataBar would alert the retailer at the point of sale.

126 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The DataBar also eliminates Price Look-Up (PLU) schemes, introduces price and weight capture simultaneously, ensures stricter adherence to best before dates, and facilitates greater compliance with stringent food regulations.

Benefits “We take product traceablity very seriously and our customers demand that their products have been produced to the highest standards and that we can verify that through the technology we use. This can only be done by investing in the latest technology and being first at that is a great honour for Feile Foods” Liam Hyland owner of Feile Foods

The experience of Feile Foods demonstrates that the implementation of GS1 DataBar standards will lead to a more visible supply chain, a decline in manual processes, increased efficiency and empower suppliers and retailers to manage short shelf-life products more effectively. In the trials, the unprecedented level of additional functionality in the DataBar enhanced the company’s supply chain management in a number of areas: • A more detailed view of realtime inventory is enabled with additional information such as batch codes and expiry date as well as the GTIN • Even small retail items are now unambiguously identified • The DataBar contains both the price and weight of each item which can be recorded at pointof- sale, traditional barcodes only carry one or the other • The expiry date can also be checked and recorded at the point-of-sale and printed on the customer receipt • Best before dates are more stringently monitored • Because the batch number is recorded at the point-of-sale and printed on the receipt, customers have a copy if they lose the packaging • Batch codes recorded at the point-of-sale can be matched with customers through loyalty card schemes, enabling a recall even after the sale is completed. • Regulatory responsibilities are easily achieved with a data rich track-and-trace system. Further information: See attached file

127 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sabine Kläser e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Backgrou __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) nd __ Expert experience, specify who: ______X Other: Standard Focus _x_ Information needs of Businesses __ Information needs of consumers __ Information needs of policy _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components _x_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: General Food

Source Specify: Information on all GS1 XML messages: http://www.gs1.org/ecom/xml/overview Content GS1 eCom provides global standards for electronic business messaging that allow rapid, efficient and accurate automatic electronic transmission of agreed business data between trading partners.

eCom is a GS1 term used for the Electronic Data Interchange technology, which can be defined as "the transfer of structured data, by agreed message standards, from one computer application to another, by electronic means and with a minimum of human intervention".

GS1 XML is designed for information exchange over the internet. Within GS1 set of standards, XML is used for Electronic Data Interchange - GS1 eCom.

GS1 XML offers a standardized way to communicate relevant information via internet. Any information needed in BtoB communication has its equivalence in a GS1 XML message. This is explained by a physical transfer order and the equivalent information in a GS1 GML message:

128 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons Since upstream stakeholders of the Agrifood business often are SMEs it is crucial to learned have a non expensive EDI solution. By means of GS1 XML the stakeholders can use the internet. This will enable them to switch from manually captured and transferred data to automatically communicated data and will enhance the use of the internet. Further informati on:

129 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: GS1 Application Identifier System and GS1 Data Carriers Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sabine Kläser e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Backgroun __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) d __ Expert experience, specify who: ______(please _X Other: Standards mark what the informatio n is based on) Focus _x_ Information needs of Businesses (please __ Information needs of consumers mark the __ Information needs of policy competen _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, ce storage, communication etc. of information) domains __ Information organization for farm cooperation the _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or informatio between enterprises and consumers) n does __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, focus on; management, institutions involved, etc.) multiple __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) marks __ IT Technology components possible) _x_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: General Food

Source Information on GS1 General Specification including GS1 Application Identifiers (where to http://www.gs1.org/barcodes/technical/genspecs#where find; e.g. Literature Information on GS1 DataBar: source, http://www.gs1.org/sites/default/files/docs/barcodes/databar/GS1_DataBar_Revolutio project n_Brochure.pdf name and web site, Information on logistics label: etc.) http://www.gs1.org/docs/transportlogistics/GS1_STILL.pdf

Content GS1 Application Identifiers are a finite set of defined identifiers used to connect physical things and with logical things to information or business messages related to them. The definitions for them reside project in a standard called the GS1 General Specifications that is available from GS1 Member relevance Organizations.

130 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Key Concepts

There are approximately 100 Application Identifiers (AI). Each AI has a two, three, or four digit numeric Prefix in front of the data to tell what the data means. For example, the AI for SSCC is (00) and for GTIN it is (01) GS1-128, GS1 DataBar and GS1 DataMatrix can carry AIs. More than one AI can be carried in one bar code. When AIs Prefixes appear in the text beside the bar code they are surrounded by parenthesis (e.g., GTIN (01) 10614141000019).

Seven AIs are used for the Keys (GTIN, GLN, SSCC, GRAI, GIAI, GDTI, GSRN). 45 AIs are trade item attributes like variable count, net weight, lot number, and expiry date. 28 AIs are logistic unit attributes like count of trade items contained, gross weight, gross volume, routing code.

All GS1 Data Carriers but EAN/UPC are based on the GS1 Application Identifier System. The Application Environment stipulates what AIDC technology to use. From 2014 the Application Identifiers can be used on consumer packages by using GS1 DataBar.

List of current GS1 Application Identifiers:

131 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

132 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

133 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Coding example in Symbology GS1-128:

GTIN Best Before Date Net Weight 94054321123459 31 December 2009 6.85 kg

GS1 Application Identifiers are also used in the GS1 Logistics Label commonly used as a link between the physical goods and the electronic data. It can contain all relevant data needed e.g.: SSCC, Weight, GTIN, Batch/Lot number. Example:

134 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons Future Supply Chain Scenarios should consider already existing implementations learned because the users might want to build on what they already developed rather than to for project start from scratch. It is important to have a solution applicable by big players and SMEs. Though using the same communication levels supply chain partners show a tendency to share only the information they have to.

Further informatio n:

135 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sabine Kläser e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is __x Other, specify: _Standard, Audit list______based on) Focus (please mark _x_ Information needs of Businesses the competence __ Information needs of consumers domains the __ Information needs of policy information does _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, focus on; multiple storage, communication etc. of information) marks possible) _x_ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _x_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _x_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components _x_ Future Internet functionalities _x_ Other, specify: Check list that serves as a basis for audits

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: generic approach, dedicated to food and food ingredients Source http://www.gs1.org/docs/gsmp/traceability/Global_Traceability_Standard.pdf (where to find; e.g. http://www.gs1.org/traceability/programme Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with The Global Traceability Standard defines business rules and minimum requirements to project relevance be followed when implementing a traceability system. It provides basic information on

- participants in the traceability process - definitions of traceable items - GS1 global unique identifiers to use on each type of traceable item - sub-processes and steps on the traceability process.

The GS1 Global Traceability Programme supports the implemenation of cross company traceabiliy of all food products and their ingredients. It is based on traceability best practices and the requirements defined in the Global Traceability Standard and has been developed in co-operation with 35 companies such as Wal-Mart, Nestlé or Kraft Foods. It consists of 105 control points out of which approximately 90 control points are related to the accurate and standardized communication, data storage and linkage of master data (partner identifications, product definitions, …) and transactional data

136 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

(batches, best before dates, serial numbers, ...) between trading partners. The Programme also refers to product quality and safety issues.

The checklist ensures a neutral and generic approach regarding the performance of an organizations`s traceability solution/implementation. The requirements are based on implemented standards such as the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) for the identification of products and the Serial Shipping Container Code for the identification of logistic units. Whereas the output of Smart Agri Food will give recommendations on how the infrastructure of the information flow will look like the Global Traceability Programme gives clear guidance on what information will is needed for cross company traceability.

Traceability Process Lessons learned for - Even within the EC the implementation of European laws in the local project (very markets (by means of national laws) can be different and results in important; what we different requirements all over Europe – thus solutions must be should consider in generic and flexible. developing our own - Even though big companies have implemented traceability solutions concept, the and standardized identification and communication procedures conclusion of the there is still room for improvement to come to a solution that is literature source or really exploitable on a cross company level. the project results) - “The Food Chain” does not exist. It e.g. varies with regard to products, laws, size of the company. This should be considered when defining the scenarios and use cases of the Smart Agri Food Project. - The demands related to Traceabiliy, Data quality, Product quality, Sustainability converge and lead to similar requirements. Further information:

137 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Guidelines for resigning the supply chain‐ classification electronic identification traceability Provider of this information (please specify): Name: András Sebők e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CBHU

Background X_ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the X_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the X_ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector X Agriculture, specify product: __general______X Food, specify product: _____ general ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. L. Panella (2001): Guidelines for resigning the supply chain. Literature source, project Classification electronic identification traceability. Ismea. Rome. Italy name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Agricultural production system has undergone major management reorganisation due to the new operational possibilities generated by rapid development of information technology. The framework of the work carried out for Macro Trade Organisations (Mocs), which are companies (mainly agricultural) whose partners operate throughout the entire supply chain. This literature highlights what emerged regarding the benefits and difficulties surrounding the possible use of IT instruments, at all levels, within the companies belonging to each of the Mocs’ operating sectors. The field of discussion had tried to widen to the entire agricultural sector by noting the results and operating methods from other sectors. The basic element of IT technology is the electronical identification of the product. This literature focused on the different positions taken up about IT, both theoretically and from a practical point of view, especially

138 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

regarding the technical instruments to be used. The table of content of this literature contains three main chapters, as: • Classification, product catalogues and e‐commerce • Electronic identification of the products and optimum management model • Traceability ─ Logic behind the traceability models ─ Methodical scheme of traceability models ─ Identification instruments and data transmission in the trade phase: standard bar codes ─ Alphanumerical codes ─ Identification instruments and data transmission in the production and packaging phase ─ Some examples of traceability Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; RFID is not intended as a system for getting rid of bar codes, but as a what we should consider system to reinforce them, as the two systems have different in developing our own applications. Bar codes are low‐cost systems for basic product concept, the conclusion information, while RFID is a more costly system for dealing with of the literature source variables, although RFID was not widely used but now there are a or the project results) number of examples of its success. Regarding to RFID there are some of the main problems may be summarised, as: • Field of scanning varies from a few inches to a few yard depending on the type of antenna array, which has a lesser field than fixed portals. • Some standards are fixed. The main question for the companies is choosing the correct type of RFID. • Cost is important, and it is difficult to predict when these will become low‐cost like bar codes. • RFID does not guarantee the accurate scanning of individual items on the pallets due to interference, but quantities in the batches are identified. In the future, the success of RFID depends on its integration with the existing Automatic Data Capture (ADC) systems and hardware, as there cannot be “RFID island”. Further information: Optional

139 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, 20.May.2011 Responsible: John Deere

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Nicole Huether e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: John Deere

Background __ Literature x Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: plant production __ Food, specify product: ______

Source ICT Agri project; John Deere is a member of the advisory board. More (where to find; e.g. Information is available on the official webside: http://ict‐agri.eu/ Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project ICT-AGRI is the acronym for the ERA-NET which has the full relevance title “Coordination of European Research within ICT and Robotics in Agriculture and Related Environmental Issues”.

ICT-AGRI began on 1 May 2009 and will be running for 51 months. The Project Consortium is comprised by 18 partners and 12 observer organisations cover 20 countries ensuring a unique platform for building and maintaining international collaborations and networks.

The overall goal of ICT-AGRI is to strengthen the European research in the area and develop a common European research agenda concerning ICT and robotics in agriculture, and to follow up with calls based on funds from the participating countries’ national research programmes. The first call is expected to be launched in 2010. The purpose is also to pool fragmented human and financial resources, in order to improve both the efficiency and the effectiveness of Europe’s research efforts.

More specifically the objectives of the ERA-NET ICT-AGRI are:

 Mapping and analysis of existing research and future needs

 Development of instruments and procedures for transnational funding activities

140 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, 20.May.2011 Responsible: John Deere

 Development of strategic transnational research agenda and programmes

 Establishing and maintaining of international collaborations and networks

ICT-AGRI will help coordinating European research in ICT and robotics and develop common research agenda based on shared priorities. New technologies are rapidly emerging and will be capable of revolutionising farming in the near future. ICT-AGRI is supporting the development and implementation of these new technologies for a competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture.

Lessons learned for Within this project intensive mapping and analysis of existing research and future needs are conducted. We should leverage their results. project (very important; what we should consider in developing our own concept, the conclusion of the literature source or the project results)

Further information:

141 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the competence domains the information does focus __ Information needs of certifying on; multiple marks possible) Sector __ Food, specify product: quality and security

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project IFS Certification Bodies: name and web site, etc.) http://www.ifs‐certification.com/ in “Certification Bodies” BRC Certification Bodies and Certified Sites: http://www.brcdirectory.com/

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance IFS IFS covers common internationally accepted audit standards in order to improve continuously safety for the consumers. IFS helps to comply with all legal safety requirements and gives common and transparent standards to the all concerned suppliers as well as a concrete and strong answer to the high safety expectations of customers. This searchable resource provides details of all IFS Certification Bodies for each IFS standard in 30 countries all over the world.

BRC The BRC Food Technical Standard to be used to evaluate manufacturers of retailers own brand food products. It is designed to assist retailers and brand owners produce food products of consistent safety and quality and assist with their 'due diligence' defense, should they be subject to a prosecution by the enforcement authorities. This searchable resource provides details of all BRC Food, Consumer Products, Packaging and Storage & Distribution suppliers who have achieved certification against a BRC Global Standard. It also provides information about the Certification Bodies.

142 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider It will be interesting to create a website portal where It will be available in developing our own all information about certification bodies and certified companies of all concept, the conclusion the standards related to the agri‐food sector in a way to provide details of the literature source to the consumers and selection criteria for the suppliers selection. or the project results)

Further information: Optional

143 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, 20.May.2011 Responsible: John Deere

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Nicole Huether e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: John Deere

Background __ Literature x Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: plant production __ Food, specify product: ______

Source The iGreen Project (german national funded project – BMBF); John (where to find; e.g. Deere is one of 24 Partners within this project, more information can be Literature source, project found on the official iGreen webpage: name and web site, etc.) http://www.igreen‐projekt.de

Content with project iGreen main objectives: relevance ‐ Develop location – based services and knowledge sharing networks for heterogeneous public as well as private information sources ‐ understanding the customer requirements in this area ‐ discovering new business opportunities ‐ data exchange in the iGreen network using Onlinebox ‐ connecting worksite and off‐worksite ‐> iGreen services ‐ development of advanced display and user interface prototypes supporting applications enabled by iGreen ‐ conduction of field test to validate the advantages of the implemented infrastructure

144 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, 20.May.2011 Responsible: John Deere

Lessons learned for The iGreen project is still running and the developed infrastructure project (very important; could be used for SmartAgriFood. what we should consider John Deere has developed an iGreen tractor that is able to in developing our own communicate data using wireless data links (e.g. via cell networks WIFI). concept, the conclusion This enables the tractor to use webservices or retrieve information from of the literature source the internet. or the project results) In collaboration with project partners field tests were conducted regarding 1: logistics scenario for biomass harvesting 2: crop care scenario for precision spraying

Further information:

145 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: iGreen project Provider of this information: Name: Daniel Martini e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: KTBL

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) _x_ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _x_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _x_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _x_ IT Technology components _x_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: _arable farming______Food, specify product: ______

Source http://www.igreen‐projekt.de (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project iGreen aims at providing a basic service level infrastructure for the relevance agricultural sector being able to deal with different formats, processes and information flows. It is meant to support knowledge sharing, especially in public‐private‐partnership settings and where spatial data are involved. The goal is to improve decision making in the agricultural sector by providing required information in a timely and flexible manner. To achieve the required level of interoperability, an RDF‐based canonical data model is created that tries to map and unify data fed into the infrastructure in different formats. One main source from which the RDF‐based model is derived is the agroXML schema. Mappings into the AGROVOC thesaurus of FAO have been created, other mappings with relevance to ISOBUS connection and mappings into common RDF vocabularies used in the Open Linked Data cloud are currently in the works. The online box created in the iGreen project is a distributed triple store based upon this vocabulary. It allows to store and provide upon request process and documentation data together with spatial

146 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

data and to run queries against the datasets. Lessons learned for Using RDF has proven as a feasible technological approach to the project (very important; problem at hand and to creating a generic canonical data model. One what we should consider of its major benefits with regard to a sector with lots of content‐ in developing our own related standardization like the agrifood sector is the ability to create concept, the conclusion interlinked and distributed vocabularies. This way, mappings between of the literature source standards can be created in smaller, easier to be handled and or the project results) constantly evolving packages. Tools and programming libraries for RDF are readily available to facilitate implementation in all kinds of IT environments and use case settings. OWL was discussed as an alternative but has been dismissed due to its inherent complexity and poor tool support. It has however to be noted, that OWL vocabulary elements are and can be used in the model, as long as the result is still triple‐serializable (e. g. owl:sameAs). RDF however also has some limitations, e. g. its inability to represent n‐ary relations directly leads to clumsy and inefficient constructs when dealing with physical quantities. As for representing spatial data, there are currently no best‐practice solutions available as to how to represent and efficiently query these in combination with RDF‐based systems. Facilities like e. g. the ability to deal with geographically referenced polygon data and special operators like the AREA, INTERSECTS or DISTANCE operators available to spatially enabled SQL‐ Databases are lacking for triple stores and have to either be implemented by hand or by internally mapping RDF‐data to another representation and translating incoming SPARQL queries accordingly. Mapping existing data sets to others in the Open Linked Data Cloud works very well in lots of cases and can easily be implemented. An open issue with regard to business use case settings is data ownership. It is very simple to provide data openly. However, it is rather complex to deal with user roles and to restrict access to certain areas only in an Open Linked Data infrastructure while still making sure that functionality is not broken. Further information: Note: this is the point of view of project partner KTBL on iGreen focussing on the semantic web work done as an addition to the more general description that has already been handed in by John Deere.

147 Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e-mail: Project Partner: NKUA Background _X Literature _ Project __ System product (eg market (please mark what the software) information is based __ Expert experience, specify who: on) ______Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source References (where to find; e.g. [1]. Barnett V. and Lewis T. Outliers in Statistical Data. John Wiley Literature source, & Sons, 1994. project name and web [2]. Hodge V. and Austin J. A Survey of Outlier Detection site, etc.) Methodologies. Artificial Intelligence Review, 22:85–126, 2004. [3]. Akyildiz I. F., Su W., Sankarasubramaniam Y., and Cayirci E. Wireless Sensor Networks: a Survey. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics (B) 38:393–422, 2002. [4]. Boyd S., Ghosh A., Prabhakar B., and Shah D. Gossip Algorithms: Design, Analysis, and Applications. IEEE Infocom,3:1653–1664, 2005. [5]. Kempe D., Dobra A., and Gehrke J. Computing Aggregate Information using Gossip. IEEE FoCS:482–491, 2003. [6]. Kowalczyk W., Jelasity M., and Eiben A. Towards Data Mining in Large and Fully Distributed Peer-To-Peer Overlay Networks. BNAIC:203–210, 2003. [7]. The DREAM Project. www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/ benp/dream/private.htm. [8]. Wolff R. and Schuster A. Association Rule Mining in Peerto- Peer Systems. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics (B) 34(6):2426–2438, 2004.

148 [9]. Clemente J., Defago X., and Satou K. Asynchronous Peer-to- Peer Communication for Failure Resilient Distributed Genetic Algorithms. IASTED PDCS:769–773, 2003. [10]. Bandyopadhyay S., Giannella C., Maulik U., Kargupta H., Liu K., and Datta S. Clustering Distributed Data Streams in Peer-to-Peer Environments. Information Sciences, 2005. [11]. Datta S., Giannella C., and Kargupta H. K-Means Clustering over a Large, Dynamic Network. SIAM Conf. Data Mining:2006. [12]. Wolff R., Bhaduri K., and Kargupta H. Local L2 Thresholding Based Data Mining in Peer-to-Peer Systems. SIAM Conf. Data Mining, 2006. [13]. V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, V. Kumar, “Anomaly Detection : A Survey”, technical report, University of Minnesota. Content with project Information Management relevance This information item overviews information management in

the context of sensing mechanisms which are envisaged for

the pilot system of smart farming and related architectural and dub-system requirements. Generally, in a environment monitored by WSNs the huge amount of generated information prohibits even the most efficient data mining algorithms from utilizing all the available data. Consequently there is a need for efficient and effective data mining methods in order, for example, to extract hidden patterns from data while also respecting the special characteristics of the environment. Outlier Detection Outliers as defined in [13] are measurements that significantly deviate from the normal pattern of sensed data Outlier detection is a long studied problem in data analysis. The survey in [2] presents how machine learning techniques can be employed in order to detect outlier. The use of statistics techniques for the same purpose is presented in [1]. Distributed Data Mining in WSNs Very recently, data analysis in large distributed networks has drawn significant attention from research community. The goal is to develop techniques that are applicable in highly distributed environments that operate under the limitations outlined in the introductory paragraph. Studies in [4], [5] investigate gossip based randomized algorithms. In [6] the authors develop a new communication model in the context of the DREAM project [7]. Recently, more complex data mining tasks have also been studied. Association rule mining is presented in [8], genetic algorithms in [9], and the classic k-means clustering in [10], [11], [12].

149 Lessons learned for Generally, in a environment monitored by WSNs the huge project (very amount of generated information prohibits even the most important; what we should consider in efficient data mining algorithms from utilizing all the developing our own available data. Consequently there is a need for efficient and concept, the conclusion effective data mining methods in order, for example, to of the literature source extract hidden patterns from data while also respecting the or the project results) special characteristics of the environment. In the case of SmartAgirfood and more specifically within the context of Smart Farming sub use case it is required to elaborate on a business meaningful scenario for pilot development. In this way as a second step the sensing information will be identified and the envisaged alarms and notifications will be also modeled and linked to specific sensed data and information. Based on those studies and considerations the most appropriate mechanisms for data aggregation shall be selected.

Moreover, in order to better showcase key features of the smart farming, the scenario for the pilot development needs also to identify the appropriate type of sensing nodes, their sensing capabilities and constraints (e.g. communication, energy, battery consuption, wireless or wired, etc.) and the rest infrastructure for efficiently interconnecting the overall value chain starting from the field of the scenario towards the end-user. Related information is provided in previous form. Further information: Optional

150 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark __ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Information Technology in Agriculture

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. The Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture (JITAg): Literature http://www.jitag.org/about/about.htm source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance The Journal of Information Technology in Agriculture (JITAg) is the official refereed journal of the International Federation of Information Technology in Agriculture (INFITA). JITAg expands and updates the research and knowledge base for Agriculture professionals to improve their effectiveness in Using IT in solving food and fiber related problems. In addition, JITAg serves as a forum for emerging and contemporary publications related to IT. JITAg is written, reviewed, and edited by agricultural IT professionals, sharing with their colleagues successful IT applications, original and applied research findings, scholarly opinions, educational resources, and challenges on publications of critical importance to the agricultural community.

151 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

It is readily accepted that increased information flow has a positive effect on the agricultural sector and individual firms. However, collecting and disseminating information is often difficult and costly. Information Technology (IT) offers the ability to increase the amount of information provided to all participants in the agricultural sector and to decrease the cost of disseminating the information. An understanding of the factors associated with IT adoption and use in agriculture will enable the development of strategies to promote IT adoption and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of information used in agriculture. It is a fact that access to information holds the key for successful development. Improved communications and information access is directly related to socio‐economic development of any nation. Agriculture is one of the prospective areas in which IT can effectively be applied particularly for the social and economic development of the Indian agrarian community. However, rural population in our country still have difficulties in accessing crucial information in the forms they can understand in order to make timely decisions for better farming. IT is generating possibilities to solve such problems of different categories of end users. For this purpose electronic communications infrastructure needs to be established in the country for remote rural areas. The challenge is not only to improve the accessibility of communications technology to the rural population but also to improve the relevance of information to local development.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; IT is playing an important and vital role in agricultural production and marketing. IT what we allows farmers to save time on order and delivery and getting feedback. In the existing should competition, there is a need to rapidly attract new customers as well as retain existing consider in customers. In order to take the real status of agricultural production and marketing, developing there is an urgent need to develop the following items: our own concept, the 1. Farmers’ crop database must be managed. The database includes the kinds of crops, conclusion the size of cultivated area, time of harvest and yield. Farmers or the extension personnel of the transmit those data via the Internet to database server. Further, information provides literature the farmer with an important instrument for decision making and taking action. source or 2. Crops information service system should be created. This system analyzes the crop the project data to create some statistical tables. Farmers can access these statistical data by results) browsing the homepage and make their production plan. Changes within the structure of agriculture will probably have an impact on the selection and types of acquisition of software and other integrated systems made by the farmers.

3. Production techniques and information inquiry system should be created. This system integrates the production techniques and information, which are developed by experimental agricultural institutes and agricultural improvement stations. Farmers can find out relevant production information through this inquiry service system.

4. Production equipment’s inquiry service system should be created. This system gathers information from the companies of seeds and crop production equipment to build the production equipment’s inquiry service system. At the same time, allow relevant companies to access this system and enter their own data. Therefore, farmers can order the needed items through this system.

Further information: See also “Role of Information Technology in Agriculture and its Scope in India”: http://www.iffco.nic.in/applications/Brihaspat.nsf/c75c8a47921f71b0e525656900233970 /82f2c15ccd4dd9a065256b37001af3fe/$FILE/it_fai.pdf

152 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

153 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Fundamental limitations of current internet and the path to Future Internet

Provider of this information: Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background _X_ Literature ___ Project ___ System product (eg market software) _X_ Expert experience, specify who: __FIArch Group__ ___ Other, specify: ______

Focus ___ Information needs of businesses ___ Information needs of consumers ___ Information needs of policy ___ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation ___ Chain communication organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) ___ System organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) ___ Process organization (production, distribution processes) ___ IT components _X_ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector ___ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source EC FIArch Group (2011): Fundamental Limitations of current Internet and the path to Future Internet. http://www.umic.pt/images/stories/publicacoes4/fiarch-current- internet-limitations-march2011.pdf

Content with project The Future Internet (FI) is expected to be a holistic communication and relevance information exchange ecosystem, which will interface, interconnect, integrate and expand today’s Internet, public and private intranets and networks of any type and scale, in order to provide efficiently, transpar- ently, interoperably, flexibly, timely and securely services (including essential and critical services) to humans and systems, while still allowing for tussles among the various stakeholders without restricting con- siderably their choices. The purpose of this current document is to identify, and to reach some understanding of, the different types of fundamental limitations of the current Internet and its architecture. The next step is to derive design objectives for the Future Internet and to identify those challenges that could possibly be met using current architecture and those that appear to demand a new or extended architectural

154 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

foundation. The report targets not only the Research and Academic community, but also the European ICT industry and decision makers (including but not limited to telecom operators, ISPs, networking equipment manufacturers and providers of value-added networking services).

Lessons learned for Many of the identified fundamental limitations are not isolated but project strongly dependent on each other. Increasing the bandwidth would significantly help to address or mitigate some of these problems, but would not solve their root cause. Other problems would nevertheless remain unaddressed. The transmission can be improved by utilising better data processing & handling (e.g. network coding, data compres- sion, intelligent routing) and better data storage (e.g. network/terminals caches, data centres/mirrors etc.), while the overall Internet performance would be significantly improved by control & self-* functions. As an overall result we may conclude to the following: Extensions, enhancements and re-engineering of today’s Internet protocols may solve several challenging limitations. Yet, addressing the fundamental limitations of the Internet architecture is a multi-dimensional problem. Im- provements in each dimension combined with a holistic approach of the problem space are needed.

Further information

155 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: The Internet of Things – Networked objects and smart devices

Provider of this information: Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background _X_ Literature ___ Project ___ System product (eg market software) _X_ Expert experience, specify who: _The Hammersmith Group_ ___ Other, specify: ______

Focus _X_ Information needs of businesses _X_ Information needs of consumers ___ Information needs of policy _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation ___ Chain communication organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _X_ System organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) ___ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT components _X_ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector ___ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source http://thehammersmithgroup.com/images/reports/web4.pdf http://www.thehammersmithgroup.com/images/reports/networked_objects.pdf

Content with project Web 2.0 was the emergence of social media and user-generated con- relevance tent. Web 3.0 is generally regarded as the emergence of the semantic web. Web 4.0 will be the Internet of Things. The nomenclature is mis- leading: these are not version numbers, and they are not sequential. In fact, 3.0 and 4.0 are developing concurrently and will benefit from each other’s advances. One of the most critical developments of Web 4.0 will be the migration of online functionality into the physical world. By attaching IP addresses to physical objects, people will be able to remotely communicate with or control actual devices through a web-based interface. Attaching wireless sensors to objects allows them to track their environment in real-time, providing the foundation for the equivalent of a Google Analytics for the physical world’s data. There will be a growing overlap between physical objects and digital icons. The individual technologies to enable this vision — GIS, GPS, QR codes, and RFID — currently exist and are beginning to be pieced together in original ways. Many of these technologies will emerge in association with energy-

156 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

efficiency applications (connected devices and converged systems; smart devices and intelligent buildings; power sharing and smart grids). As awareness grows and prices drop, these will filter out into broader business, consumer, and entertainment uses.

Lessons learned for Embedding a small amount of processing power into appliances can project create significant benefits for users. Networked objects can serve users better and can help modify users’ behaviour in positive ways.

Further information Real estate industry

157 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Food Supply Chain – Food Safety Certification

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. ISO 22000: Food Safety Management Systems Standard by SGS: Literature http://www.foodsafety.sgs.com/iso‐22000‐information‐request.htm source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance ISO 22000 was designed in 2005 to cover all the processes along the food chain that deal directly or indirectly with the end product being consumed. Furthermore, it specifies the requirements for food safety management systems by incorporating all the elements of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) together with a comprehensive management system.

The FSSC 22000 and ISO 22000 certification processes are identical and consist of six steps:  Step A – SGS provides you with a proposal based on the size and nature of your organization. You can then proceed with the audit by accepting the proposal.

158 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

 Step B – You may ask SGS to perform a ‘pre‐audit’ to give an indication of the readiness of your organization for the audit. This stage is optional, yet it is often found useful in identifying any weaknesses in your systems and in building confidence before the formal audit.  Step C – The first part of the formal audit is the ‘Stage 1 – Readiness Review’. This onsite audit lets us evaluate the compliance of your documented system with the requirements of the standard to ensure correctness and completeness of hazard identification, CCP determination, pre requisite programs are in place and appropriate to the business including to better understand the nature of your organization, to plan the rest of the audit as effectively as possible and to initially examine key elements of the system. You will receive a report after this stage identifying any concerns or observed non‐compliances so that you can take immediate action if required.  Step D – This is ‘Stage 2’ of the initial audit process. The audit includes interviews with you and your colleagues and examination of records. Observation of your working practices determines how compliant your actual processes are with the standard and with your own documentation system. At the end of this stage, we will present the findings of the audit along with other observations and opportunities for improvement. Once you have addressed the non‐conformities, a technical review of the audit will then be conducted by an authorized SGS Certification Manager to confirm the issuance of a certificate.  Step E – Our surveillance visits will be scheduled at either six or twelve month intervals depending on the contract. During the visits, we review the implementation of the action plan addressing the past non‐conformities and examine certain mandatory and other selected parts of the system in line with an audit plan that we provide you before each visit.  Step F – Shortly before the third anniversary of the initial certification, our routine visit will be extended to enable a re‐certification audit. Surveillance visits will then continue, as before, on a 3‐year cycle.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very The Benefits important; what we ISO 22000 can be used by all organizations in the supply chain, from farming to food should services, to processing, transportation and storage, through to packaging and retail. consider in Furthermore, it creates a harmonized food safety standard that is accepted the world developing over: our own  Integrates food safety management easily with other management systems, concept, the such as quality, environmental and safety management systems; conclusion of the  Controls/reduces food safety hazards and promotes continuous improvement literature on Food Safety Aspects; and source or the project  Increases transparency throughout results) the food supply chain.

The standard is easier to understand, apply and recognize. That makes it more efficient and effective as an entry‐to‐market tool than previous combinations of national standards.

159 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Further information:

160 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Food Supply Chain ‐ Supply Chain Security Standard

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. ISO 28000 Standard (Supply Chain Security Management Systems) by SGS: Literature http://www.supplychainsecurity.sgs.com/supply_chain_security_v2/iso‐28000.htm source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance ISO 28000:2007 is a Management system specification for the protection of people, property, information and infrastructure; in companies and organisations participating in local, national and international supply chain operations. ISO 28000:2007 is suitable for all sizes and types of organisations that are involved in the production of goods, manufacturing, services, storage or transportation at any stage of the products’ development or movement in the supply chain. Supply chain security is an essential requirement for companies involved in the international supply chain, especially those having to comply with stronger security demands from Customs and/or their business partners.

161 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

ISO 28000:2007 is a risk‐based standard, similar to ISO 14001, integrating the management system process‐based approach of Plan‐Do‐Check‐Act (PDCA) and the requirement for continual improvement.

This standard specifies the requirements for a supply chain security management system, linking security management to many other aspects of business management. These include all activities controlled or influenced by organizations that impact supply chain security, including transportation of these goods along the supply chain.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; The Benefits: what we  Allows security to be managed as a process so that the effectiveness of security should management can be measured and improved; consider in developing  Allows management to focus resources and efforts on areas with high‐risk our own concerns (through a security risk assessment); concept, the conclusion  Allows management to benchmark its security management efforts with of the international standards; and literature source or  Demonstrates to stakeholders the commitment to enforce a systematic the project security management. results) ISO 28000:2007 uses a more pragmatic approach in which the risk levels of your supply

chain operations are identified. It enables your organization to perform a risk assessment with supporting management tools (i.e., document controls, key performance indicators, internal audits and training) and applies the controls in accordance with the risk involved.

The framework of ISO 28000:2007 is structurally very similar to ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management Systems (EMS) standard. The environmental aspects identification and evaluation process in EMS is analogous to security risk assessment in security management.

SGS can audit your management systems against the requirements of ISO 28000 to help you understand the gaps in your system as compared to the standard requirements (Gap Analysis). Alternatively or additionally, we can take your organization through the full certification process.

Further information:

162 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: ISOagriNet data exchange standard for livestock farming Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Esther Mietzsch, Daniel Martini e‐mail: [email protected], [email protected] Project Partner: KTBL

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) _x_ Other, specify: IT Standard_____

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: livestock farming __ Food, specify product: ______

Source www.isoagrinet.org (in German) (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project ISOagriNET is a standard for data exchange in agriculture, mainly relevance between process computer and between process and management computers in livestock farming. It supports networking in stables between feeding computers, climate control and regulation machinery etc. but it is also used in dairy production and cattle breeding to transport milk recording data between farmer and dairies or breeding associations. As such, it provides an on‐farm bus system as well as an inter‐enterprise communication channel. The format for data transmission is described by the ADIS standard (Agricultural Data Interchange Syntax), the data definitions are given by ADED (Agricultural Data Element Dictionary). The following ISO standards are normative references with regard to ISOagriNet: ISO 11787 (published in 1995) Machinery for agriculture and forestry ‐ Data interchange between management computer and process computers ‐ Data interchange syntax

163 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

ISO 11788‐1 (published in 1997) Electronic data interchange between information systems in agriculture ‐ Agricultural data element dictionary ‐ Part 1: General description ISO 11788‐2 (published in 2000) Electronic data interchange between information systems in agriculture ‐ Agricultural data element dictionary ‐ Part 2: Dairy farming ISO 11788‐3 (published in 2000) Electronic data interchange between information systems in agriculture ‐ Agricultural data element dictionary ‐ Part 3: Pig farming. The focus of ISOagriNET is on live stock farming. Apart from the standards documents given, data dictionaries are maintained on international and national level. In Germany, a list of entities and items, their data types and definitions including the national as well as the international data dictionary, can be found at: http://www.lkv‐nrw.de/index.php?id=292&no_cache=1 Lessons learned for The data dictionary is freely available without licence fees. It provides a project (very important; comprehensive list of data items mainly for dairy and cattle farming, but what we should consider also for pig farming. Data items and entities refer to single animals, in developing our own groups of animals, to the climatic conditions, feeding, milking, the farm concept, the conclusion in general etc. The available data dictionaries provide a comprehensive of the literature source list of potential data items to be exchanged in smarter, future internet or the project results) based infrastructures. Items and entities are numbered, semantic meaning is attached to them by a number of fields available in the data dictionary. Due to that fact and recently relatively well available documentation, a transformation to current semantic technologies and application in future livestock farming use cases is considered a relatively straightforward task by the team at KTBL and could help to overcome certain interoperability issues. ISOagriNET conformant bus systems are now available on the market and a number of research initiatives exist, that leverage and process ADIS/ADED data in novel ways. Further information:

164 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Data Exchange Automation for the Integrated Administration and Control System of the EU Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Mario Schmitz, Daniel Martini e‐mail: [email protected], [email protected] Project Partner: KTBL

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: arable farming ______Food, specify product: ______

Source www.agroxml.de (in German) (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project The goal of the project "Harmonisation of data exchange in the relevance Integrated Administration and Control Systems subsidies request procedure" was to automatize und simplify the procedure of applying for subsidies by reverting to the data kept in a farm management information system. The data receiving end is the integrated administrative and control systems (IACS) provided by the responsible authority. During the project, approaches to an application implementing several features were developed:  an evaluation mechanism guaranteeing the quality of exported data by referring on a well defined set of data and data types with reasonable value ranges.  communication based on the standard for data exchange in agriculture agroXML. The data model and content lists of agroXML were extended with data structure and vocabularies needed in the IACS procedure.

165 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

 besides additions of generic nature to the main part, agroXML and the software interfaces were supplemented by a mechanism for adding use case specific data on a temporally limited basis. The approach used also copes with the problem of referring to various field identifications systems where assignment of an agricultural parcel and the reference area could be different. A class model complements the agroXML model as documentation.

Lessons learned for Provision of a well designed data model, available in an open format, project (very important; seems the right approach to convince operator and software producer. what we should consider The reliability of generic data structure and types assure stability during in developing our own software development and implementation of external interfaces. This concept, the conclusion of the literature source reduces the development cost and enables a higher level of quality, a or the project results) factor of special importance to small and medium sized software providers incapable of putting enough resources into implementation of complex and changing standards. Different use cases with another legal background are followed by different requirement. This effect not only applies to data about agri‐environmental measures but also the land parcel identification system which is one of the key components of the IACS. For example introducing external keys for identifying fields and subunits from an external source and referring them to the entities stored in the own database is an uphill job. Especially when the boundaries of a field have changed, fields are divided or new fields must be included in the dataset. From the perspective of the farmer, this functionality should be implemented in a simple to use interface.

With the help of a standardised data exchange protocol and the deployment of restful web services, the project partners succeeded to integrate a software module in different farm management software systems for generating the request for subsidies using electronic means. The farmer is thus relieved from the burden of entering data several times and instead use its farm management information system he already uses for documentation.

Further information: Optional

166 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the competence domains the information does focus __ Information needs of laws/legislation on; multiple marks possible) Sector __ Agriculture, legislation

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Areas (Spain legislation): name and web site, etc.) http://www.marm.es/es/alimentacion/legislacion/ Access to European Union law EUR‐Lex: http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm Summaries of EU legislation: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/index_fr.htm

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Whereas EUR‐Lex provides the full texts of all EU law documents and other documents considered to be public, the “Summaries of EU legislation” website presents the main aspects of European Union (EU) legislation in a concise, easy‐to‐read and unbiased manner. It forms part of the Europa portal, which is published by the EU institutions. This website provides approximately 3 000 summaries of EU legislation. They are offered in the form of factsheets disseminated under 32 thematic areas corresponding to the activities of the EU. The themes range from agriculture to transport, presenting comprehensive and up‐ to‐date coverage of EU legislation. Currently, the website is offered in 11 languages (the official languages of the EU before 1 May 2004).

The Official Journal of the European Union is the principal source of EUR‐Lex content and it is published in the early morning after every working day. It consists of two series: L (Legislation) and C (Information and Notices). E and A are Official Journals published as annexes to the C series (e.g. C 307 A, C 309 E). The contents of the site amount to some 2 815 000 documents with texts dating back to 1951. The database is updated daily and every year

167 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

around 12 000 documents are added. The website is available in 23 official languages of the European Union.

The first website provides information about the national and autonomous agriculture laws and regulations of Spain.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider It should be convenient to have the same type of website portal but in developing our own especialized on the agri‐food sector and also for the others continents concept, the conclusion including all the legislation of each continent countries. And connect it of the literature source with the food alerts website portal (RASFF for Europe) of each continent or the project results) because what it posibly be considered as a risk for human or animal health depends sometimes on the legislation of each country.

Further information: Optional

168 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e‐mail: Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the competence domains the information does focus __ Information needs of laws/legislation on; multiple marks possible) Sector __ Agriculture, legislation

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Areas: name and web site, etc.) http://www.marm.es/es/alimentacion/legislacion/

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance It provides information about the national and autonomous agriculture laws and regulations of Spain. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider in developing our own concept, the conclusion of the literature source or the project results)

Further information: Optional

169 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Nikola Vucic e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: HWDU

Background _X_ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components _X_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Literature on infrared animal screening: (where to find; e.g. 1. M. Stewart, J. R. Webster, A. L. Schaefer, N. J. Cook, and S. L. Literature source, project Scott, “Infrared thermography as a non‐invasive tool to study name and web site, etc.) animal welfare”, Animal Welfare 2005, 14: 319‐325. 2. P. Kunc, I. Knizkova, M. Prikryl, J. Maloun, “Infrared thermography as a tool to study the milking process: A review”, Agricultura Tropica et Subtropica, vol. 40 (1), 2007. 3. Flir Commercial Systems: www.flir.com Content with project The infrared animal screening is gaining attention as a promising tool for relevance studying animal welfare. Its primary advantage is that it is a non‐ invasive technique. After a great progress in infrared camera

technology, this technique can also be considered today as affordable.

The main application of the infrared screening in the dairy industry is the early detection of mastitis (by measuring the temperature differences), which is a major concern in this field. On the other hand, in the beef industry, the measurements of stress (e.g., during transport), which presents a very valuable information that is also demanded in order to have humanely produced products, can be performed using this technology. Finally, the infrared screening has general applications in animal healthcare (detection of injuries, infection, pain, osteoarthritis, etc.).

170 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The infrared screening can be relevant to two use cases in the SmartAgriFood project. Some applications of the technique might be conveniently demonstrated in a small‐scale, indoor experiment for the Smart Farming use case. The measurement of stress during transport can be of interest for the Smart Agri‐Logistics use case.

Lessons learned for project (very important; It should be remarked that the benefits of the infrared screening and what we should consider the payoff for the end‐users (farmers, logistics companies) should be in developing our own further investigated. Namely, an infrared image can provide indeed very concept, the conclusion valuable information either for a monitoring person or an expert system of the literature source which performs an automatic image processing analysis. However, in or the project results) some cases the diagnosis cannot be based on this image alone, and additional examinations might be needed. Further, the environmental conditions during the imaging must be considered (e.g., external temperature, time of the day, the condition of the animal, etc.).

The advantages of the technology are its simplicity, a broad range of applications in the animal sector, and the ability to answer the ever‐ growing consumer demands on good animal health. Namely, the animal welfare, besides raising the ethical issues, has also direct implications on food safety and quality.

Further information: Optional

171 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa s Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: new recommendation for the logistic specific features of the dairy products Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Dora Lanzinger e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __X Other, specify: EPC/RFID ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: __ dairy products ______

Source (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project Together with retail and industry players, GS1 developed and relevance implemented a new recommendation using the existing GS1 Standards for dairy – specific logistic.

Lessons learned for GS1 offer a wide range of standards and solutions in all industries. This project (very important; recommendation is relevant for the dairy branch. It makes the standard what we should consider easier to use and understand so the benefit of the standard can be in developing our own maximized. Dairy products have special requirements, for example: concept, the conclusion short product life, temperature, storage restrictions because of of the literature source chemical contamination, frequent orders (fast seller), and seasonal sales or the project results) variations. Retailers and industry have to work closely together to get the full benefit. Conflicts and losses in this area are avoidable when following the new recommendation. Below are 2 examples from this recommendation :

172 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The original GS1 standard states that a new Global Trade Item Number is needed when the product weight or volume is changed by more than 20%. The new recommendation lowers this threshold to 10%.

This recommendation regulates the labeling of pallets holding products with different expiry dates. The new recommendation states that the earliest expiry date must be on the pallet label. Further information: The aim is to improve cooperation between trade and industry in the dairy sector.

173 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: LOGSEC - logistics and supply chain security

Provider of this information: Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background ___ Literature _X_ Project ___ System product (eg market software) ___ Expert experience, specify who: ______Other, specify: ______

Focus ___ Information needs of businesses ___ Information needs of consumers ___ Information needs of policy _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain communication organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _X_ System organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) ___ IT components ___ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector ___ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source FP7 EU Security Project "Development of a strategic roadmap towards a large scale demonstration project in European logistics and supply chain security". http://www.logsec.org/ http://www.logsec.org/images/upload/file/docs_logsecroadmapsummaryfinal.pdf http://www.logsec.org/images/upload/file/docs_logsec-roadmap-finalpublic.pdf

Content with project LOGSEC formulated the following main research questions: “What relevance should be done in the future to enhance supply chain security in a costefficient manner, in the European context?”, and furthermore, ”Why and how should these enhancements be carried out, while avoid- ing unnecessarily high investments and operational expenses?”. Cluster B of the project focuses on areas relating to the authentication and certification of people, companies, documents and data in the supply chain. With improved assurances that the people and information in the supply chain are trustworthy, deception may be filtered out, uncovered and fraudsters deterred.

174 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons learned for Authentication of companies: project - Objective: help to ensure that manufacturing, trade, logistics, reverse logistics, and other service companies in the supply chain are authen- tic, and in possession of required licences. The scope of the sub- project includes verification of company data and information against trusted databases etc. - Asks for: assistance to effectively validate the security level, standard or qualification of business and supply chain partners. Integrity of personnel: - Objective: to verify past and present criminal activity among people engaged in the supply chain, through personnel background checks, integrity checking, verification of credentials, etc. - Asks for: tools and procedures for enhanced pre-employment background checking and pre- and on-going computer-based evaluation of personnel integrity, in compliance with EU privacy legislation and national employment rules, where applicable. Authentication of documents: - Objective: to prevent the introduction of false documents in the supply chain including personnel credentials, trade and logistics documents etc. - Asks for: tools and methods to identify forged documents in the supply chain and to take action to minimize their ability to compromise the supply chain. Protection of supply chain IT systems: - Objective: to reduce successful attempts to steal data, to alter data, and to cause any type of harm in ‘e-trade’, supply chain management, order fulfilment and to logistics platforms. - Asks for: tools and procedures to enhance the identification and authentication of users and electronic systems and where possible, to block unauthorised access to computer systems and databases which might otherwise compromise the security of data and communications in the supply chain. Authentication of boxes, containers and their contents - Objective: to increase the trust of and authenticity of declarations (documentary or otherwise) regarding the content of boxes, containers and seals (i.e. “what’s on the box is in the box – and vice versa”), and the integrity of packaging. - Asks for: tools and procedures to ensure that the content of shipments reflects the description on the company paperwork. Authentication of raw-material and products - Objective: to identify and filter out counterfeit products and falsified product certificates in the supply chain. - Asks for: tools and procedures to aid recognition of various types of counterfeit products and certification forgeries.

Further information

175 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: METRO Group - The RFID application spectrum

Provider of this information: Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background ___ Literature ___ Project _X_ System product (eg market software) ___ Expert experience, specify who: ______X_ Other, specify: _Publication by METRO Group on the use of RFID_

Focus _X_ Information needs of businesses _X_ Information needs of consumers ___ Information needs of policy _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain communication organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _X_ System organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT components ___ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______X_ Food, specify product: ______

Source METRO Group - The RFID application spectrum http://www.future-store.org/fsi-internet/get/documents/FSI/multimedia/pdfs/ broschueren/WISSB_Publikationen_Broschueren_SpektrumRFID.pdf

Content with project Over the next few years, radio frequency identification (RFID) will fun- relevance damentally change processes throughout the consumer goods sector. At the heart of this innovation is the transponder, a tiny computer chip equipped with an antenna. Usually, the chip contains a number code that can be read by radio waves, allowing the positive identification of items. With the help of computer systems, detailed information on each item can also be assigned to its corresponding chip. This means that a retailing company can follow the progress of every one of its products seamlessly along the supply chain – from the producer all the way to the retail outlet. The information supplied via RFID allows corporations to plan their internal processes more efficiently and make optimum use of resources, which translates into major savings potential. In addition to the consumer goods sector, RFID also has important applications in agriculture and industry, the health and leisure sectors, and in public facilities. The publication presents some of the most interesting exam-

176 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

ples of RFID application, involving: - LOGISTICS AND WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT, - CONSUMER GOODS INDUSTRY, - INDUSTRY, AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, - SERVICE SECTOR, - HEALTHCARE SECTOR, - TRAFFIC AND TRANSIT, - PUBLIC SECTOR, - HOUSEHOLDS, - LEISURE, - OTHER APPLICATIONS.

Lessons learned for RFID is intensively used in different industries. The publication presents project some of the most interesting examples of RFID application.

Further information Publication in English and German

177 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Milk quota Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Fruzsina Homolka e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CBHU

Backgroun X_ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) d X_ Expert experience, specify who: ______(please __ Other, specify: ______mark what the informatio n is based on) Focus X_ Information needs of Businesses (please __ Information needs of consumers mark the X_ Information needs of policy competen __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, ce storage, communication etc. of information) domains X_ Information organization for farm cooperation the __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or informatio between enterprises and consumers) n does __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, focus on; management, institutions involved, etc.) multiple __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) marks X_ IT Technology components possible) __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to http://eur‐ find; e.g. lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V2&T2=2004&T3=595&RechType=RECH_naturel&Submit= Literature Keres%C3%A9s source, project http://www.atkft.hu/feladat/alap/index.html name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with The milk quota scheme was introduced by the EU in the year 1984. The information of project the quantity and quality of milk is collected by Livestock Performance Testing Ltd. and relevance transferred to the EU to calculate the yearly laid down milk quota. The information flow is performed on the internet. The scheme is aimed to ensure the balance of the market through the control of the quantity of raw milk produced and by the use of market regulation instruments. During

178 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

the reforms of CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) the milk quota scheme was extended till the year of 2014/15. The system is administered by the Livestock Performance Testing Ltd. The Livestock Performance Testing Ltd. is collecting the applications and the accounts, and does the systematization of these documents, and passes out milk quota record keeping of data, and ensures the information flow to the Agricultural and Rural Development Agency. Livestock Performance Testing Ltd. do the on‐site monitoring of the allotted milk producers and purchasers together with the Agricultural and Rural Development Agency and participate in ascertaining the fat content of the milk by its accredited laboratory, which is needed for the calculation of the milk quota. Livestock Performance Testing Ltd. implements milk production monitoring, measure the quantity of the milk per day, and test sample in fixed periods. These measurements are made with an electronic True‐Test HI, and the gauging of the quantity is made by “Work‐about scanner” which is a manual computer. The estimation of the appearance and body composition is also being registered in a manual computer.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned We need to mention that the level of computer literacy and use of the Internet is for project significantly lower in the agri‐food industry than in the ICT sector, therefore sometimes (very we may need additional measures to ensure that the target audience should read the important; messages from program level that is why it is important for the project, maybe we can what we offer a solution to improve these sectors. should To distribute the national quota and to allocate the achievement and over‐achieving of consider in the quota every member need to operate a quota registration. The achievement of the developing delivery quota and the direct sales quota are allocated separately. our own This scheme is important because it use IT and manual computers for collecting data concept, and transmit data, and also important because it is included in the: the • Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004 of 30 March 2004 which is laying down conclusion detailed rules for applying. of the • Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk literature products sector, and in Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 source or September 2003 establishing a levy in the milk and milk products sector. the project • Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common results) organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products. The registration of data is handled with “work‐about scanner”, but the transfer of the information is slow and only worked out manually. It can be a possibility to find a solution for helping the information flow and to reduce the presence of errors through the use of the future internet. Further Optional informatio n:

179 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Assisted compliance with standards (Smart Farming) Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Liisa Pesonen e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: MTT

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) _X_ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: _ Arable farming products_ __ Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. http://www.futurefarm.eu/taxonomy/term/12 Literature source, project (Deliverable 4.1‐4.3) name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The content of the deliverables demonstrate how management strategies and compliance to standards may be dynamically integrated in the FMIS (Farm Management Information System) of tomorrow. Information on regulatory requirements, required documentation, voluntary standards and management strategies will be made available in a standardised machine‐readable form via web‐service interfaces. The FMIS can then search these web‐services based on catalogues to find all relevant information. In the simple case, this information will be presented to the farmer, allowing her/him to make a more informed decision. In an advanced case, the software will be able to use this knowledge to analyse existing data and produce planned actions conforming to a chosen management strategy and set of standards. Such assistance in decision‐making will make it easier for farmers to comply to standards and successfully implement their chosen management strategies.

180 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Web‐based automatic rules management for compliance with goverment and private standards in farm planning is described (D4.3). Existing standards for machine‐readable encodings listed (D4.1.1). Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; Information needed in farmer’s decision making, e.g. environmental what we should consider rules, brand specific rules, rules for chemical use,etc., should be in developing our own published and available in web‐servers via open interfaces, and encoded concept, the conclusion in machine‐readable format in order to arrange (real‐time) decision of the literature source making support to farmers. Reliable internet connections are essential or the project results) when applying assistance in task execution level.

Further information: Optional

181 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Information flows and FutureFMIS Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Liisa Pesonen e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: MTT

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) _X_ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: _Arable farming products __ Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: http://www.futurefarm.eu/taxonomy/term/11 (where to find; e.g. (Deliverables D3.1‐3.7) Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) SØRENSEN, C.G., FOUNTAS, S., NASH, E., PESONEN, L., BOCHTIS, D., PEDERSEN, S.M., BASSO, B., BLACKMORE, S.B. 2010. Conceptual model of a future farm management information system. Computers and electronics in agriculture 72, 1: 37‐47. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2010.02.003

SØRENSEN, C. G., PESONEN, L., FOUNTAS, S., SUOMI, P., BOCHTIS, D., BILDSØE, P., PEDERSEN, S. M. 2010. A user‐centric approach for information modelling in arable farming. Computers and electronics in agriculture 73, 1: 44‐55. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2010.04.003

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Information flow models for arable farming field tasks (all) including decision modules, their input data and data produced in startegic, tactical, operational, execution and evaluation levels (D3.2) from the poin of view of the farmer as decision maker are presented. Functional architecture of the Future Farm Management Information

182 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

System (Future FMIS). Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; Farmers make a huge amount of demanding decisions in their every day what we should consider work in arable farming. Most of the knowledge is still so called tacit in developing our own knowledge, but when shifting towards precision farming or Smart concept, the conclusion Farming, assisting automation is needed and therefore, also of the literature source information and knowledge models has to be presented in machine or the project results) readable format. In order to serve farmer‘s future needs in Precision farming, Farm Management Information Systems has to be built as systems of systems, consisting of a core FMIS with profession specific logic providing assisting functionalities, and loosely connected service elements/components. Together these elements form a farm specific taylored composition called Future FMIS. Further information: Optional

183 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) _X_ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the _X_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the _X_ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Food Traceability

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project ONE TRACE SYSTEM (GS1 Egypt) name and web site, etc.) http://www.gs1eg.org/pdf/one‐trace‐w.pdf

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Traceability is a benefit not a burden As the Egyptian Agro‐food industry grows rapidly indicated by the rising numbers of quality produce exported to the U.S and European markets, more and more professional business practices are being developed and adopted by the Egyptian producers. In order to maintain both this growth and our competitive advantage as a fresh produce exporting country it is important that we keep pace with the changing environment and these professional practices. Food safety and traceability are currently at the forefront of both government and industry discussions around the world. Numerous initiatives designed to introduce various forms of traceability Functionalities in the global food Supply Chain has been established. European and U.S. Legislations are putting greater pressure on

184 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

companies to equip with their own traceability systems. These legislations were established to determine responsibilities, to allow authorities to fight against fraud and to limit health crises. As of January 2005, traceability will be a legal obligation in the European food sector. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 defines traceability as the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food‐producing animal or substance intended to be or expected to be incorporated into a food or feed in all stages of production, processing or distribution. In practice, this requires all food and feed business operators to have systems in place to identify from whom they have received a food or feed and to whom they sold a food or feed (one step back and one step forward). Furthermore, there is a growing tendency for product safety amongst the European consumer groups which emphasizes the adoption of this law. Also In the United States a similar requirement regarding the establishment of records to identify the immediate previous sources and immediate subsequent recipients of food, including its packaging, was proposed in the Bioterrorism Act (section 306) and will come into effect by June 2005. So Traceability has become an important market access issue because suppliers unable to meet its challenge may be denied access to European, U.S. markets and customers, irrespective of the quality or price competitiveness of their products. The implementation of traceability system brings along many advantages for the company. First of all, it enables the optimization of product quality since Traceability and quality management go together. A traceability system guarantees the reliability of product information and helps to quickly pinpoint the cause of quality problems. Once a company knows where problems arise regularly, it can anticipate future ones. Another advantage is that it enables companies to better control their logistic operations. Being constantly aware of the exact location of its dispatch units allows a company to optimize its stock management, what in its turn can lead to huge cost savings (less spoilage and less left‐ over,…). Furthermore, transport and deliveries can be monitored in real time, which may lead to a better customer services. When using a traceability system, a contaminated product, a product of inferior quality, can be located quickly and precisely. This way there is no need to destroy all products, but only the ones bearing an anomaly, so that costs linked to recalls can be minimized and corrective steps can be worked out more quickly. It also helps protect a company’s image.

What to do to comply with these traceability requirements? The application of EAN.UCC standards is the prerequisite for the establishment of all traceability systems. This is because tractability is all about communicating information between partners which of course is best attained by deploying a common business language – the EAN•UCC standards. Their global reach and universal acceptance by consumers, businesses and governments make them uniquely positioned to provide the appropriate response to the traceability systems legal and customer requirements. Based on its ability to provide globally unique identification of trade items, logistic units, parties and locations, the EAN.UCC System is particularly well suited to be used for traceability purposes. The EAN.UCC standards provide a global business language that is used to enable accurate and fast communication between

185 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

different traceability systems used by suppliers, manufacturers and retailers around the world.

Traceability implementation (what should I do?) EAN International has published a common traceability solutions development methodology with global recommendations for users in all sectors. One of these Guide lines is the Fresh Produce Traceability Guidelines: The aim of these guidelines is to provide a common approach to tracking and tracing of fresh produce by means of an internationally accepted numbering and bar coding system – the EAN•UCC System To start applying these Guidelines then you have to register with the EAN Member Organization located in your country (GS1 Egypt), you will need to do so to have every one of your products registered with a unique international number (Global Trade Item Number) ™ represented by a barcode on its packaging. It is therefore our commitment to have every one of your products numbered before the end of this year to avoid being incompliant with your customer’s requirements and also every carton or pallet have the full logistical information recorded on it.

Uniqueness of GS1 Egypt’s traceability solutions: When you read the above mentioned requirements, you will notice that the first requirement for traceability implementation is Identification as it is the cornerstone for any traceability system. To uniquely identify your product among all other competitive products around the world, you have to be registered in Gs1 Egypt ‐ the sole member organization in Gs1‐ that is authorized to allocate unique identification for Egyptian products/ services. The role of Gs1 Egypt does not only stop at this point but it developed a unique traceability solution Called ONE TRACE that fits all different sizes and nature of businesses taking into consideration the tight profit margins of the Egyptian food producers and processors who consider the traceability implantation a burden more than a benefit because of its cost. Gs1 Egypt’s one trace System is a fully automated solution especially tailored to you that gives you an eye on your product along the whole chain starting from the raw material to your final customer. The scalability of the one trace system makes it support your business growth and it gives you a variety of reports according to your requests and keeps record of all relevant information. Moreover, The Gs1 International standards adopted by the one trace solution facilitate all your business operations internally and across boarders by using the global language of Business. Although the one trace system is a user friendly one, Gs1 Egypt supports your staff with training hours helping them using the system in a professional way making sure of getting the maximum use of it.

Where can we implement one trace? The one trace system is especially designed to cover all food industry in Egypt either fresh or processed. the one trace system proved its efficiency dramatically in the agrofresh food industry by the adoption of Egypt’s key fresh food exporters such as Dakahlia, Al‐Shams Agrogroup, Technogreen, Nile Valley Group (NVG), Agro Fresh(Consukorra), mpress, EverGreen, Belco, Trade Waves, Orchard, Celf, Pyramids,

186 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Alahram etc. the one trace systems met the requirements of all our applicant clients regardless of the size and nature of their businesses. The one trace system covers all different stages of production starting from the raw material to the processing , packing and packaging , storing till your customer recording all relevant product information that includes who is responsible for any operation, when exactly it is handled and how (the material used, temperature, weight etc). It also has an open number of users enabling you to add unlimited number of users whenever you need.

One Trace solution controls and automates the following areas: 1. Packing house: • Receiving of fresh produce from farms or external suppliers. • Receiving of packaging material from Raw Material stores. • Controlling all packing house activities in each Batch (sorting, washing, packaging…..) • Keeping record of all the employees that participated in each activity inside the packing house and record each employees output. • Automatically generate unique batch numbers • Generating carton labels based on the EAN 128 standard. 2. Raw Materials Store: • Controlling all in and out activities in each store (issue, receipt, transfer, return….). • Warehouse locations will be coded to record the exact position of the raw material. • All reading done on the hand held (data collector) will be downloaded to system software. 3. Farms: • Every plot in each farm will have a historical database file, recording the agricultural life cycle, actions and treatments done for this plot. 4. Cold Stores: • Generate a pallet label for each pallet coming from the packing house based on the EAN.UCC standards and including a unique serial shipping container code(SSCC) for each pallet. • Recording all the client/destination information on which the shipment will be dispatched. 5. Supplier/customer relations: • Recording all external suppliers with their farm and plot. • Recording all local and international clients’ data to establish a complete client shipments track record. 6. Reporting: The software contains a comprehensive set of business critical reports related to traceability/production data thus providing the companies management with an excellent platform for informed decision making and problem analysis. Examples of reports: • Traceability and product life cycle reports • Production quantities reports • Problem tracking reports • Shipments detailed reports GS1 The global language of business page 7 of 8 • Quality control reports • Productivity analysis reports 7. Label Printing:

187 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

• Carton label • Pallet label • Plot label • Employee/operator card • Raw Material label 8. Communications: • Traceability software is based on dot net Microsoft technology allowing internal access inside the production sites and browser web based external access.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider Finally, the benefits of one trace system implementation can be in developing our own summarized as follows: concept, the conclusion • It makes a total control of all the stages of your supply chain. of the literature source • It reduce Costs and delays associated with product recalls, Costs of or the project results) manual searches through warehouses and stores, Costs of handling returned goods while minimizing fraud which will affect on customers and their confidence. • It Supplies fundamental tools for the analysis and management of risks. By better controlling the risks, the company can maximize its results, besides offering more security and confidence to the consumer. • It uses a common language, the GS1 System of identification and bar Coding • It is, therefore, broad‐based in that GS1 Standards are used in over 140 countries around the world by a large majority of supply chain partners (there are over 1 million GS1 user companies). • It takes a global approach, addressing the supply chain as a whole rather than any particular individual partner. • It focuses on the interfaces of physical flow of materials and products, establishing an open, global relationship between independent partners. • It is flexible, recognizing that circumstances vary within and between sectors, and thus providing for tailored applications

Further information: Optional

188 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Object Name Service (ONS) and Federated ONS – the key stone of the future B2C architecture and Internet of goods/ things Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Ralph Tröger e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is -x- Other, specify: Standard______based on) Focus (please mark __ Information needs of Businesses the competence __ Information needs of consumers domains the __ Information needs of policy information does -x- Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, focus on; multiple storage, communication etc. of information) marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation -x- Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) -x- IT Technology components -x- Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Intersectoral applicable

Source http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal (overview about all EPCglobal (where to find; e.g. standards, i.e. Architecture Framework) Literature source, http://www.gs1.org/gsmp/kc/epcglobal/ons (ONS Standard - please note that project name and there is also a GS1/EPCglobal underway which is working on the specification web site, etc.) for a Federated ONS, i.e. no single ONS root but rather several peer roots. The current standard follows a centralized architecture).

Content with . Introduction to ONS: project relevance o Based on DNS – (Domain Name System), an Internet standard for discovering addresses and services related to Internet domain names (best known uses are to resolve Internet addresses of web sites and to

discover receiving server for e-mail) o Can be compared to a telephone directory whereas the “name” to be looked up is a URN (a GS1 key, e.g.) and the “number” returned is the internet address of a service o Agnostic as to the data carrier (bar code, RFID, …) used for the identifier

. Relevance for SmartAgriFood (Use cases): . Location of brand owners/ known supply chain partners EPCIS (Electronic Product Code Information Services) servers in order to

189 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

retrieve visibility data, i.e. EPCIS events (what/when/why/where) . Locating the GEPIR ( http://www.gepir.de/ for Germany) node for querying basic product or location information and for querying global company prefix ownership . Retrieval of authoritative Mobile Commerce data based on the product’s GTIN . Locating an authoritative Product Authentication service . Finding a WDSL file for a product . Finding a HTML formatted web page description of a product . etc.

Lessons learned for . Already some pilot projects underway (especially driven by GS1 France, project (very GS1 Sweden) for instance dealing with the retrieval of product information important; what we as well as testing a federated architecture. should consider in . The ONS is expected to be one of the most important components of the developing our own Future Internet as well as in B2C interaction. Thus, conceptualizing its concept, the utilization for the food supply chain could become a major requirement/ conclusion of the input for the Core Platform. literature source or . Based on DNS and the EPCglobal standards (i.e. based on globally accepted the project results) standards)

Further (I) Illustration (Please note that the service interaction is out of scope of the information: FONS specification)

Service query

ONS

Client Service interaction

Service

190 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

(II) Position in the EPCglobal Architecture Framework

191 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark __ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information _X_ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Agri‐food sector

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Open Innovation in the Agri‐Food Sector Literature http://www.openinnovatie.nl/download/Research%20paper%20Open%20Innovation%20in%20the%2 source, Food%20Sector%2018‐09‐2007.pdf project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance For most of the 20th century, the focus of the agri‐food sector has been on enlarging production capacity and on continuous cost reduction. This focus was very effective in achieving competitive advantage in terms of productivity improvements and desired cost reduction although important agriculture raw materials like sugar, milk etc… also benefited from EU price regulations. However, after many decades of success, this has led to commoditization, an increased environmental burden and encroachment on public spaces. Simultaneously, the agri‐food industry is increasingly facing considerable challenges that undermine its competitive position. The fast development of

192 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

technologies and the rapidly changing markets, combined with increased global competition (also due to relieve of EU’sprotection measures) and changing customer demands, imply that a firm’s focus on production capacity and cost reduction can only generate a temporary competitive advantage. To remain competitive in the long run, a switch to a more sustainable agri‐food sector is required. In order to achieve this, the agri‐food sector has to increase its innovative capacity by creating new products and services, commanding a premium.

Cooperating with others on the development and commercialization of new products and technologies is an important way to innovate. This is one of the several ways to start “open innovation”.

Open innovation can be defied as the combination of internal and external paths for both the development and commercialization of new technologies and products. Open innovation will lead to added value for participating firms by the following:

 Access to new knowledge: by cooperating in networks, firms have better access to new knowledge enhancing the innovative potential of an organization.

 Scale and scope effects: by combining (financial) resources in which cost and risk reduction play a crucial role, new knowledge can be developed which was impossible for each member to obtain alone.

 Total solutions: by cooperating with different partners along the value chain, firms are able to cover a larger part of the value chain. This can lead to increased added value for customers by offering a total solution.

Thus, open innovation enlarges the innovative potential of firms (by capturing a part of the jointly created added value) and leads to integrated innovation across the value chain. Hence, open innovation has many potential benefits to increase the (jointly created) added value of agri‐food firms that could strengthen the competitive position of the agri‐food industry as is shown in the following figure.

193 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; Recommendations what we should  Create a benchmark study to investigate the state‐of.the‐art of open innovation for different consider in branches within the agri‐food sector. Moreover to create a better understanding of the level developing of open innovation in the agri‐food sector, one should also benchmark the agri‐food sector our own with different types of industry excelling in open innovation e.g. pharmaceutical industry, concept, the biopharma etc… Hence, branch specific and argi‐food sector specific weakness and conclusion opportunities can be identified and consequently targeted by a more focused use of policy of the literature instruments. source or the project Further research is required to get a better understanding and to assess bottlenecks in results) technology transfer between these public parties and agri‐food firms.

 Professionalize the organization of open innovation networks by collecting and diffusing lessons learnt within the argi‐food sector. A network needs to be managed. It is important that this activity is carried out professional, structural and proactive. Professionalization of networks is related to the establishment of very specialized organizations or intermediaries that have a unique role to play in the organization of open innovation within networks.

A key success factor is the presence of a neutral third party network orchestrator. A key role of the network orchestrator or coordinator is to monitor the level of trust and commitment between partners and to intervene if these factors are decreasing.

 More practically speaking, to manage these open innovation networks management tools should be used. Checklist or scorecards help innovation networks to be aware of most common pitfalls.

Periodically monitoring performance networks can improve the longevity of networks. Moreover, workshops and trainings can be organized in which open innovation practitioners can share experiences. To optimally learn, invite experts of other types of industry who have more experience with open innovation e.g. IT, telecom etc…

Further Optional information:

194 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please mark __ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: Organic Waste Reuse for Urban Agriculture

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: Organic Waste Reuse

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Organic Waste Reuse for Urban Agriculture Literature http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev‐103817‐201‐1‐DO_TOPIC.html source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance Sustainable management of solid waste is a major challenge being faced by municipal authorities across the world, both in the North and the South. In developing countries, urban waste remains a serious problem that causes contamination of soil and water bodies and endangers human health and the environment. Much of the solid waste consists of organic matter that can be recycled into a profitable input (compost) for urban agriculture. Composting the large quantities of organic matter provides a win‐win strategy by reducing waste flows, enhancing soil properties, recycling valuable soil nutrients and creating livelihoods, but there remain several constraints that explain why this opportunity is seldom exploited. This chapter discusses the benefits of constraints to composting and presents a framework for analysis and planning of composting interventions. The arguments and

195 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

models contained in the chapter are supported with case study material from Ghana, Philippines and Kenya. Waste is a product or material that does not have a value anymore for the first user and is therefore thrown away; however, it could have value for another person in a different circumstance or even in a different culture (van de Klundert and Anschutz, 2001). Municipal authorities have insufficient financial, technical, and institutional capacities to collect, transport, and safely treat and dispose of municipal wastes, consequently waste management remains one of the major urban problems (Drechsel and Kunze, 2001). Urban waste could be solid or liquid, organic or inorganic, recyclable or non‐recyclable. A considerable quantity of urban waste is biodegradable and hence of immediate interest in recycling. The organic waste fraction remains the largest proportion to be recovered.

Urban Waste Management Strategy Many approaches to waste management exist. Generally, solid waste is managed through landfills, incineration and recycling or reuse. However in developing countries, properly engineered landfills are not common while the cost of modern incineration is too exorbitant to bear. Hence, the most common method of waste disposal is some form of landfill, including variants such as uncontrolled dumping in undefined areas, collection and disposal on unmanaged open dumps, collection/disposal on controlled dumpsites (UNEP, 2004). It is common to find scavengers moving from door to door or sorting through communal bins to pick dry recyclable materials. However, these pickers are more interested in inorganic recyclable materials such as plastics and glass, but not in organic wastes. Agenda 21, adopted in Rio in 1992, states that environmentally sound waste management should include safer disposal or recovery of waste and changes to a more sustainable pattern introducing integrated life cycle management concepts (UNEP, 2004). It introduced a stepwise approach to waste management in order of environmental priority. The general principle of the waste management hierarchy consists of the following steps:  Minimising wastes;  Maximising environmentally sound waste reuse and recycling;  Promoting environmentally sound waste disposal and treatment;  Extending waste service coverage. After Rio most countries have generally accepted this hierarchy as a strategy towards an environmentally sound waste management system. In the last ten years the concept of Integrated

196 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Waste Management (IWM) has evolved and is slowly becoming accepted by decision makers (UNEP 2004). IWM relies on a number of approaches to manage waste, including all aspects of waste management, from generation to disposal, and all stages in between with proper consideration of technical, cultural, social, economic and environmental factors. Resource recovery is critical and is embedded in this strategy.

Use of Urban Organic Waste for Urban Agriculture The provision of sufficient food and the provision of basic sanitation services, two major challenges in (mega‐)cities, are inter‐linked as the urban food supply contributes significantly to the generation of urban waste (Drechsel and Kunze, 2001). In principle, therefore, recycling organic waste through composting could be a win‐win situation for municipalities and farmers (for example see the Marilao, Philippines case study by Duran et al.). The interests of urban waste recycling go well with the promotion of urban agriculture since urban and peri‐urban farmers are in need of organic matter as a soil conditioner. Cities and towns, on the other hand, wish to conserve disposal space and reduce the costs of landfills as well as municipal solid waste management. Also important is the need to incorporate informal waste collectors and the private sector that contribute to urban waste management into this process (see Box 8.2 and the Nairobi, Kenya case study by Njenga and Karanja).

Benefits and constraints Zurbrugg and Drescher (2002) report that the potential benefits of organic waste recycling are particularly in reducing the environmental impact of disposal sites, in extending existing landfill capacity, in replenishing the soil humus layer and in minimising waste quantity. Other benefits adapted and summarised from Hoornweg et al. (1999) with particular reference to organic waste composting are that it:  increases overall waste diversion from final disposal, especially since as much as 80 percent of the waste stream in low‐ and middle‐income countries can be composted;  enhances recycling and incineration operations by removing organic matter from the waste stream;  produces a valuable soil amendment ‐ integral to sustainable agriculture;  promotes environmentally‐sound practices, such as the reduction of methane generation at landfills;  enhances the effectiveness of fertilizer application;  can reduce waste transportation requirements;  is flexible for implementation at different levels, from household efforts to large‐scale centralised facilities;  can be started with very little capital and operating costs;  the climate of many developing countries is optimum for composting;  addresses significant health impacts resulting from organic waste such as reducing Dengue Fever;  provides an excellent opportunity to improve a city's overall waste collection programme;  accommodates seasonal waste fluctuations such as leaf litter and crop residues;  can integrate existing informal sectors involved in the collection, separation and recycling of wastes.

Although composting seems an attractive option in many respects, it is also constrained (Hoornweg et al., 1999) by the following factors:  Inadequate attention to the biological process requirements;  Over‐emphasis placed on mechanised processes rather than labour‐intensive operations;  Lack of vision and marketing plans for the final product ‐ compost;  Poor feed stock which yields poor quality finished compost, for example when contaminated by heavy metals;  Poor accounting practices which neglect that the economics of composting rely on

197 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

externalities, such as reduced soil erosion, water contamination, climate change, and avoided disposal costs;  Difficulties in securing finances since the revenue generated from the sale of compost will rarely cover processing, transportation and application costs.  An evaluation of composting projects in West Africa pointed out that apart from being too expensive, a common problem leading to project failure is poor co‐ordination among institutions and stakeholders due to weak institutional linkages and the lack of an enabling institutional framework, including clear legislation and policies. Experiences from six composting stations of different scales of production in five countries in West‐Africa (see the overview in table 8.1 in the Annex) showed that compost stations in the sub‐region suffer from a number of omissions (Drechsel et al., 2005). Lack of thorough market analysis including consideration of alternative soil inputs; transport costs; user's demand as well as willingness and ability to pay for compost prior to station set‐up; lack of supportive legal frameworks and institutional arrangement to implement composting initiatives are some of these. In many cases, important stakeholders (land owners, waste collectors etc) were often not involved in planning which then constrained successful implementation. Apart from these, most composting projects are not financially viable, especially when outside funding available for the initial set up is exhausted. These points confirm the need for a comprehensive feasibility study before setting up any composting project.

Framework for Analysis and Planning of Composting Planning is necessary to ensure a well functioning composting system. Analyses of the various segments ‐ from waste generation, recycling to re‐use ‐ is necessary.

The first segment of the loop, urban consumption and waste generation, addresses the supply dimensions of urban waste. It raises questions regarding organic waste production, location, ownership, quality, quantity, time, availability, value, health & safety constraints, etc. This is followed by the second segment waste processing, where questions are raised on (possibility of) organic waste transportation, appropriate processing methods (i.e. composting), production capacity, operation costs, sustainability, subsidies etc). The third segment deals with compost demand and address questions on users' demand, application, experiences, ability and willingness to pay, cultural

198 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

constraints, etc. In addition to these three segments, there is an economic analysis linking the demand and composting segments that addresses economic viability, marketability and distribution. The final element looks at the legal, institutional and communal setting, in which the issues of planning, regulations, by‐laws, policy constraints or support, land availability, local stakeholder participation, monitoring & evaluation, inter/intra‐sectoral corporations, etc. are addressed, throughout the cycle of analysis.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; Challenges Ahead what we should Composting raises issues not only of the technological approach used, but also of the necessary consider in organisational set‐up for operation and management of the composting, delivery of feedstock (raw developing material) and distribution of the compost product as well as proper extension or education. our own Hoornweg et al. (1999) list several reasons why the use of organic waste and composting in particular concept, the are not widely or successfully practisd in cities of developing countries. conclusion of the  Insufficient knowledge and care in carrying out composting operations leading to inadequate literature compost quality and resulting in odours and rodent attraction that is deemed a nuisance. source or the project  Lack of markets for the product and lack of appropriate compost marketing strategies and results) skills.

 Neglect of the economics of composting which relies on externalities, such as reduced soil erosion, reduced water pollution and avoided disposal costs.

 Limited support by municipal authorities who tend to prioritise centralised waste collection services rather than promote and support recycling activities and decentralised composting schemes.

In addition, the following issues related to organic waste recycling require applied research:

 Appropriate methods of segregation at source or sorting procedures to allow delivery or utilisation of pure organic solid waste for the co‐composting process and to limit risks of compost contamination by impurities and chemical constituents;

 Marketing strategies and institutional framework

 Regulatory frameworks and realistic standards for compost use.

The recycling of urban organic waste brings several ecological advantages that can enhance energy efficiency through carbon, nutrient and water conservation in urban and peri‐urban landscapes (Holmgren, 2002). These advantages can be categorised as the micro‐environment benefits as they relate directly to soil amelioration measures, but in addition, energy efficiency should also be considered in the broader sense to encapsulate the wider advantages that can be accrued at national, regional and international scales. For example, recycling organic waste through composting in urban agriculture reduces the need to import chemical fertilizers and food stuffs. Furthermore, when urban organic waste recycling is decentralised there is reduced need for external inputs such as

199 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

equipment, fuel and transportation.

Many urban and peri‐urban areas are vast nutrient sinks as the recyclable nutrient potential from organic waste is seldom exploited and thus lost. This is compounded by the combination of soil nutrient mining in rural and peri‐urban production areas and the accumulation of urban organic waste in the disposal sites. In these sites the mined nutrients accumulate in the peri‐urban areas, largely through informal waste disposal due to the inefficiency of formal waste disposal structures (Drechsel and Kunze, 2001; Cofie, 2002).

Reversing these trends and patterns requires the adoption of holistic and integrated approaches to organic waste recycling that seek to optimise the use of a combination of methods at appropriate scales of intervention to manage organic waste in urban agriculture is a sustainable way. This means closing the nutrient recycling loop by reversing the negative impact of urban and peri‐urban nutrient sinks through maximising nutrient exploitation of urban organic wastes. Furthermore, such interventions can be designed to generate livelihoods and thus contribute to urban food security. The combination of methods at appropriate scales allows for the design of interventions that are geographically applicable to the prevailing urban conditions, while exploiting urban organic waste for urban agriculture also enhances environmental protection by reducing organic waste quantities, as well as reducing the need for inorganic fertilizers in urban agriculture.

Further Optional information:

200 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is __ Other, specify: Internet based on) Focus (please mark _X_ Information needs of Businesses the competence __ Information needs of consumers domains the __ Information needs of policy information does _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, focus on; multiple storage, communication etc. of information) marks possible) _X_ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Patents and trademarks information

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (SPTO): project name and http://www.oepm.es web site, etc.) European Paten Office (EPO) http://www.epo.org

Content with Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project relevance SPTO The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (SPTO) is an autonomous body at the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade that promotes and supports technological and economic development by offering legal protection for the different types of industrial property by granting invention patents, utility models, industrial designs, protection titles for semiconductor product topographies, trademarks, trade names, distributing information related to these. The SPTO therefore has a dual mission:  Granting the different industrial property titles, after examining the corresponding applications.  Offering technological information services based on the information on the different types of industrial property granted by the SPTO and by other foreign industrial

201 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

property offices.

As a consequence of its registration activity and indivisible from it, the SPTO owns a wealth of technological information which is unique in Spain and which is fully available to the public through the Technological Information Service. The SPTO's Technological Information Service can be used for the following purposes, among others:  To find out about the legal situation of all the files handled by the SPTO.  To identify trademarks and signs used in the market and assess the possibility of obtaining new signs.  To monitor the competitive environment of technological and commercial development activities.  To determine the "state of the art" in a particular technological sector.  To allow technological evolution to be monitored.  To provide a source of ideas to stimulate technological innovation and development. The information contained in all types of industrial property is therefore made available to the public through a wide range of services from which the user can select the one most suited to their needs. Access to this information can be obtained by applying to the Publications Office ([email protected]). Delivery times and prices vary according to the service requested.

Patent Technological Reports Description These reports provide an in‐depth analysis of the patents published world‐wide that are related to a research and/or development project or with a particular technical issue. They contain a description of the search profile used (International Patent Classification or other classifications, key words, requesters, etc.) and a comment on the search results to facilitate the interpretation of the report. They are accompanied by copies of documents that are considered to be particularly relevant to the objective of the search and lists of the references retrieved from the databases queried. The reports are drafted by qualified SPTO specialists who remain in direct contact with the requester in order to ensure that the search matches the needs expressed as closely as possible. Utility These reports can have a wide variety of uses for determining the State of the Art in a very specific sector. They provide highly useful information for decision‐making related to industrial property procedures for a new invention or to determine the legal status of certain patents, which can serve as a guide when negotiating licences and the possible financial value of the patents.

Custom Technology Surveillance Reports Description These reports, published with the periodicity requested by the user, provide bibliographic references on the patents published inside and/or outside of Spain, related to the topic defined by the user. Utility It enables a company to keep abreast of the evolution and most significant new developments in the technology they use in their activities, as well as the technologies patented by competing companies.

Retrospective searches Description

202 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

With this service, the STPO offers the user access to a Spanish‐language bibliographic database of the patents and utility models published in Spain (INVENES), as well as an English‐language database of patents published in the rest of the world (external databases). If, when browsing this database, the applicant identifies in the title, summary or company name, for example, a record that might be of interest, he can consult the document free‐of‐charge on the INTERNET, using the esp@cenet and INVENES databases accessible via the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office's website (www.oepm.es) or by requesting a hard copy by fax, post or email from the Diffusion Centre ([email protected]).

EPO The European Patent Office (EPO) offers inventors a uniform application procedure which enables them to seek patent protection in up to 40 European countries. Supervised by the Administrative Council, the Office is the executive arm of the European Patent Organisation.

Mission and vision As the Patent Office for Europe, we support innovation, competitiveness and economic growth across Europe through a commitment to high quality and efficient services delivered under the European Patent Convention.

Search and examination The EPO carries out searches and substantive examinations on a steadily rising number of European patent applications and international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. In the case of European patent applications, the Office provides the option of an accelerated search and examination procedure. Read more about the grant procedure in the "Applying for a patent" section of our website. Oppositions The Office is also responsible for examining oppositions filed against granted European patents. Appeals The boards of appeal are responsible for deciding on appeals filed against decisions of the receiving, examining and opposition divisions of the EPO. They also consider alleged breaches of the Rules of Professional Conduct for professional representatives before the Office. The boards of appeal are independent, their decisions being governed solely by the provisions of the European Patent Convention. Read more about the boards of appeal . Patent information Disclosure of the invention and subsequent publication are fundamental to the European patent system. The European Publication Server is where the public can obtain official copies of European patent documents. The European Patent Register provides details of the procedural status of patent applications at the EPO. The EPO's collection of over 70 million patent documents from all over the world is available to the public via the free Espacenet service on the internet. The EPO also provides a wide range of other products for searching patent databases. See the "Searching for patents" section of our website.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider A patent provides the inventor, or sometimes another owner of the invention, with the right to in developing our exclude others from reproducing that invention. This protection has a defined time limit (e.g., own concept, the 20 years in the U.S.), and one purpose of ensuring exclusive production of the invention during conclusion of the literature source or that time is to enable the invention‟s owner to realize financial return to offset the often

203 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa the project results) considerable cost of the invention‟s original development and its future manufacturing. By

providing this opportunity for financial gain the patent system also, naturally, stimulates both the emergence of new inventions and the sharing of their benefits with the public at large.

While the notion of just releasing new ideas to the public domain without a patent process might seem attractive, it is doubtful if anyone would be willing to spend very large sums of money in creating new machines, agricultural crops, veterinary drugs, and other valuable entities while knowing that other people could then simply copy those innovations and market them. The patent, in providing a period of exclusive ownership, creates the incentive for investment that then stimulates both invention and subsequent production.

PATENTS COVERING PLANTS AND OTHER ITEMS USED IN AGRICULTURE

Specialized varieties of crop plants, pest‐control chemicals, advanced feed formulations for livestock, veterinary drugs, and innovative mechanical equipment like crop planters and harvesters are all examples of inventions that can greatly assist the farmer to achieve higher product yields and enhanced product quality. They are also examples of technologies whose development may require many years of research and testing. The legal right to exclusive ownership, provided by the patent for a finite period of time, ensures that the individuals and companies who invest heavily in that research and development have an opportunity to recoup those costs and to provide a return for their investors through subsequent marketing of the technologies.

PATENT INFORMATION NEEDED BY FARMERS

Marketed products containing patent‐protected components are used by consumers on a daily basis, for the purpose stated by the manufacturer, without the consumers‟ having any interest in the applicable patents. However, in some instances and particularly where the opportunity might arise to inadvertently reproduce the invention (for example, to produce seeds from patented crop varieties for use in the following season), the farmer might be required to enter into an agreement specifying terms of use. These terms may include the inability to save seed for future planting.

PROGRESS OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION

As described above, patents have provided the incentive for seed companies to continuously invest in the production of new varieties that are higher yielding, more disease resistant, better in appearance or taste, etc. Generally speaking, it is very unlikely that the considerable enhancements represented by many new technologies could, or would, be realized by farmers and consumers if the companies that developed them were unable to obtain patent protection. Without some assurance of a return on their investment, the cost of development and evaluation of efficacy and safety would be sufficiently high to render such projects too risky financially. Thus, in regard to major agricultural products, patents generally work as drivers of innovation, enhancement, and benefit. Farmers may choose to avail themselves of these new developments, or to continue to emphasize more established or traditional methods.

204 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

LIMITS

A patentable technology is most likely to be deployed in applications that can earn sufficient revenue to recover its development and commercialization costs. It follows that those applications addressing small, niche, or low‐profit markets that cannot be expected to generate that kind of return may not readily benefit from the technology. And since the technology is patented, programs and organizations that might raise funds to extend it to those alternative applications will also need to license it from the patent holder. This, in turn, may prove challenging if many different patented components are required to achieve the end result.

A well‐known instance of this situation in agriculture is the challenge of extending plant biotechnology to small‐market crops, and to agriculture in developing countries. Perhaps the best‐known example is the nutritionally enhanced rice („Golden Rice‟) referenced below, whose introduction into commercial agriculture required the establishment of licensing agreements with many diverse entities which own essential components of the underlying technology.

An organization known as the Public Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA, referenced below) works to facilitate the sharing and licensing of patented biotechnologies to non‐profit organizations, to agriculture in developing countries, and to smaller‐scale applications.

Further Optional information:

205 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sjaak Wolfert e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: LEI - WUR

Background __ Literature x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the --- Expert experience, specify who: information is based on) --- Other, specify:______

Sector x__ Agriculture, specify product: arable farming______Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Current projects can be found on www.pplnl.nl and Literature source, project www.agrifoodlivinglab.nl name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The program on precision agriculture (in Dutch: PPL) focuses on developing more sustainable agriculture by application of precision agriculture. Main themes are controlled traffic farming, fertilization and crop protection.

This is done by: Focusing on organizing and creating new networks for development and maintaining new precision agricultural technologies. Development of new software applications en other tools and embed these in a common digital infrastructure

The organisation consist of different Dutch agri-food participants. Each participant can save ‘miles‘ for doing work related to this theme. Their

206 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

saved miles can be used to initiate new projects paid by the Dutch government. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider One of the main questions that is difficult to solve is how do we reach a in developing our own good common digital infrastructure? This challenge is large and concept, the conclusion complex. Long term benefits are clear for everyone. However, in the of the literature source short term it is unclear how to get there. Who takes the first steps? It or the project results) appears that for individual service providers and ICT companies the initial investments are too large and too risky, while the models for return of investment are unclear. Moreover, the trend in ICT development is to build on existing components as much as possible and preferably add only that what is your own core business. The problem for the agri-food sector is that these components are not there yet, or that they are insufficiently accessible. The question is how to establish the required interaction in development between users and developers. Recent years, several projects in Europe tried to develop these components. So far, no major breakthroughs are provided. It is expected that a project is a too closed environment and therefore reduces the incentive for competition to obtain good solutions. Further information: Optional

207 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Urban Retail Logistics Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Dora Lanzinger e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: EPC/RFID ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Fresh food

Source (where to find; e.g. http://www.urbanretaillogistics.de Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project relevance By now urban living spaces are marked by overloaded infrastructures and a high degree of issue. In the long term there will be other bans and restrictions for the internal-urban traffic. Environmental zones, entrance restrictions and toll fees complicate the conditions on logistics service provider and trading venture. It comes for delays of delivery and bottlenecks. At the same time the demands of the inhabitants of urbane regions change, e.g., by the demographic change. Customers want increasingly shopping possibilities in immediate nearness in which they can buy fresh food and order other products to the collection the next day. Others want better order possibilities on mobile phone or Internet, adaptable deliveries in the late evening or a trouble-free availability of exotic articles. Commercial draughts must satisfy in future more and more individual customer wishes and be, besides, combinable with service achievements or domestic care with meals.

The logistics is clearly demanded through this. Thus order amounts will

208 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

further decrease by the lowering of the store surface and deliveries become smaller on an average. Not exactly a cost-optimum and resource-careful development if one remains with the draughts ruling today.

To guarantee with lasting effect the care of the towns, new, resource- careful, ecologically friendly and actual draughts are necessary. With the main theme »urbane care« technical solutions and models which protect a care of the urbane living spaces in the long term should be developed. Lessons learned for Urbane Retail Logistics is a trader-covering beginning to the efficient project (very important; logistic reorganization of urbane care structures and more individually what we should consider urbane commercial draughts. in developing our own Beside the solution of economic and ecological challenges in particular concept, the conclusion the changing social and political demands should be considered. of the literature source On this occasion, the application is looked by key technologies and or the project results) innovative services as an essential successful factor.

Further information: Urbane heave is an infrastructure-optimized and CO2 more neutrally logistics location for the urbane care of conurbations. The enterprise- covering and assortment-covering grouping of goods and services is produced by neutral service providers. The added value of the logistics of service lies in the more efficient care and disposal of customer- individual delivery points.

In the group plan "Urban Retail Logistics" competitors co-operate to renew existing logistics draughts and commercial draughts and to adapt to the changed consumer behavior and the conditions in urbane conurbations.

To do justice to future logistic challenges in urbane rooms and at the same time the demands of the individuals, it is a matter of controlling the grouping of goods streams as well as the development more individually of service at the same time. Logistic infrastructures and interfaces between long-distance traffic and the fine distribution in the urbane space must be developed in addition and be reshaped. Beside new forms of trade and close care draughts new order possibilities and supply ways should also originate for the customer. The project should consider the essential trends in the today's society, the individuation, the change of the consumer behavior, the demographic change and the urbanization. Put on for 43 months, the project will realize step by step the planned innovations. Besides, the project partners will take over to her core competences suitable part or work together in interdisciplinary teams. For the solution of the described challenges to the future urbane care in the commercial area solution stones are developed within the scope of the plan in three categories Logistics, IT and trade.

209 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, competence domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information does focus __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, on; multiple marks management, institutions involved, etc.) possible) Sector __ Food, specify product: Food Alerts and Traceability

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF): name and web site, etc.) http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/index_en.htm TRACEBACK Project: http://www.traceback‐ip.eu/

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance RASFF The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) provides food and feed control authorities with an effective tool to exchange information about measures taken responding to serious risks detected in relation to food or feed. This exchange of information helps Member States of Europe to act more rapidly and in a coordinated manner in response to a health threat caused by food or feed.

The European Commission has created this portal as part of its striving to make the functioning of the RASFF as transparent as possible to the consumer, business operators and authorities around the world. In doing so however, it needs to strike a balance between openness and protection of information that could lead to disproportionate economical damage. If dangerous products need to be recalled from the market, Member States and the European Commission immediately act to ensure that the product is removed, including providing the necessary information to consumers.

TRACEBACK TRACEBACK is the acronym for "Integrated system for a reliable traceability of food supply chains", an Integrated project of the European Union Sixth Framework Programme of Scientific and

210 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Technological Research , Priority 5 "Food Quality and Safety". TRACEBACK is an integrated project supported by the European FP6 with the aim to create a standard European traceability system applicable to the entire food supply chain and involving its key players from field to shelf. The strength of TRACEBACK derives from the joint effort of 28 partners representing 11 EU countries that allows the integration of essential worldwide competences in the food sector, ICT and microdevices. A key novelty of this project is the demonstration of a working traceability model that will assure the sharing of reliable information along the food chain by anchoring the product flow with the information flow.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider It will be necesary in the future to do the same food alerts sistem but at in developing our own a world global stage to avoid slow acting when a risk is detected concept, the conclusion anywhere in the world before it causes worst damages. of the literature source It will be convenient to join in the same website portal information or the project results) about the traceability in a way to act better and quicker when a risk is detected. It will also be interesting to have in the same portal updated information about new legislation related to new GMOs and new tecnical methods to detect them and a list of the analysis centers who do it in each country.

Further information: Optional

211 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Sabine Kläser e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other: Standard and Service Focus (please mark the _x_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components _x_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: General Food

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. information to the recall service in Canada: Literature source, project http://www.gs1ca.org/page.asp?intPageID=1395 name and web site, etc.) information to recall in German: http://www.gs1-germany.de/service/recall_service/index_ger.html

Content with project Most food companies are able to track and trace their food products relevance and food product ingredients and know at least their “direct neighbours” of the supply chain. There are standardized ways to identify partners (GLN), products (GTIN and batch, GTIN and serial number), to automatically capture the information (EAN/UPC barcode, GS1-128, EPC, ..) and to communicate information (e. g. via EANCOM®).

Up to know there is no standardized way to deal with recalls and withdrawals.

GS1 Recall service is a web-based, b2b communication service which enables trade partners to exchange standardized recall information quickly, excactly and safe. It is available in Canada and the United

212 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

States. and being rolled out in Germany.

Key features:

 Standardizes the recall process between suppliers, distributors and retailers  Uses GS1 standards  Improvement of efficiency  Only authorized persons are able to initiate recalls  Recalls can be forwarded to selected target groups  Attachments can be added  Live status of current recalls

Scenario:

PRODUCER

RECEIVER

Recall Recall Wholesaler initiation approval

Notification Retailer

Data collection

Apart from this under the umbrella of the GS1 Global Standard Management Process GS1 Member Organizations and users are collecting the business requirements for recall communication worldwide and are defining a generic recall approach.

Lessons learned for - Within companies recalls and withdrawals are accounted for project (very important; by quality departments although traceability often is what we should consider accounted for by logistics departments. Since traceability is a in developing our own prerequisite for recall it is important to address all persons in

213 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa concept, the conclusion charge of the literature source - The degree granularity of information that should accomany a or the project results) recall differs strongly. But in general users want more than just what is needed by law. - Users are vere sensitive with regard to data security of web based applications - Users are interested in using already implemented keys for identification of products and locations - They want flexible solutions, e.g., solutions that will allow them to reach out to the end consumer and to the government in the future - They want as many automization as possible. German users are interested in highly automized solutions Further information: For GSMP Recall Workgroup please refer to Sabine Kläser (klaeser@gs1- germany.de)

214 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Logistic

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. The RFID Application in Logistics and Supply Chain Management Literature http://www.medwelljournals.com/fulltext/?doi=rjasci.2009.57.61 source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance The emergence of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology has been greatly increased efficiency in the production process management, material flow management, logistics and transport, retail and distribution and other fields of the national economy industries, including electronic information industry. RFID may eventually replace the ubiquitous bar code in the future and become the main technology in logistics and supply chain management field (Singer, 2006). Compared with the popular bar code technology, electronic tag has many advantages: omitting the manual control, waterproofing, antimagnetic, bearing the high temperature, a long service life and wide reading distance. Moreover, on the electronic label, data may encrypt, the storage

215 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

capacity is big and the canned data can be changed. Thus, it has wider and more convenient application than the bar code. The popularization and the application of RFID will bring revolutionary changes to the retail and logistics industry. The advantages of RFID technology make it have extensive application. In logistics management field, the RFID system can be applied to the cargo management of intelligent warehouse. It not only can process the cargo to go into storage, leave the storehouse and the stock management, moreover also can supervise and manage all the information about the cargo. At the same time, to introduce the RFID technology to the logistics management field, it can effectively save the artificial cost, enhance the work’s accuracy, guarantee the product quality, accelerate the processing speed. Moreover, the cargo with tags on them can effectively avoid being stolen, damaged or lost by using the read‐write equipment in logistics management center.

THE ADVANTAGE OF RFID IN LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT The RFID technology is a flow control technology. It can provide the strategic significant incremental benefit to the supply chain of manufacture, logistics, wholesale and retail industry. RFID industry can help enterprises increase the exchange quantity and accelerate the flowing speed of information to promote the efficiency and save the cost. In recent years, the RFID technology attracts so much attention. Experts in the industry analyzed reasons. First, global renowned chain commercial group Wal‐Mart announced, from January, 2007, the biggest 100 suppliers of this group use the RFID technology to replace the popular bar code. Second, global code organization EPC global has published the standard specifications of product electronic code signal technology. All of these cause people enormously to favor the developing prospects of RFID technology. Several large supplier and retailer have already adopted this new technology. Wal‐Mart and the American Department of Defense display are typical examples. Wal‐Mart requests its top 100 supplier paste the tag on all goods plate, the vessel, the box and the high profit products before January, 2007. The American Department of Defense also set January 2007 as the deadline to request suppliers paste the tag. Although, there is serious commercial risk, suppliers have to accelerate the technical innovation and increase the investment. With the highly development of RFID technology, the price of the tag will greatly decrease. The last barrier that restricts the broad application of RFID technology will be eliminated. The companies which carry on early investment on RFID technology will hold big superiority to their competitors. This drives most of the company to research, develop and use this practical highly effective new technology. Why can RFID cause the company to obtain rich profit? Mainly because it can reduce stock and the sales personnel cost, reduce labor cost of reading the code, reduce the goods in stock, reduces the occurrence of larceny and out of stock situation and so on (Biederman, 2006). Reduce stock and the sales personnel aspect cost: Generally speaking, for retailers, the stock and retailer cost will occupy 2‐4% of their operation expense. The bar code recognition process which consumes much manpower can be replaced by using the read‐write equipment to recognize the goods plate, the vessel, the box and the products. The RFID technology can reduce the number of sales person for >30%. Reduce labor cost of reading the code: The use of RFID product can help retailer reduce labor cost as well as regular cargo management and service fee of goods shelf. Through enhancing the self‐service, reducing inspection time and mistake, the RFID product can greatly improve present inspection method of automatic scan. Reduce the goods in stock: The accurate stock list can reduce the occurrence of decreasing the book value intentionally. RFID can effectively reduce the stock mistake; highly promote the validity of stock report. Through, the use of RFID to track commodity accurately, the company can clearly grasp the sales historical record and enhance the accuracy of forecast of stock in need. Reduce the occurrence of larceny: For retailers, the loss of larceny reaches as high as 30 billion dollars, occupying at least 1.5% of total sales by conservatively estimation. By RFID technology, we can reduce loss of stock by tracking the commodity in supply system and finding the

216 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

concrete position of commodity at anytime. The RFID technology has been applied successful in some stores, especially for the high profit or expensive goods. Reduce the occurrence of out of stock situation: For retailers, the out of stock means making customers disappointed, or going to their competitors. Until now, the loss of out of stock is up to 4% of total sales, for food grocery. RFID technology can track the products, make clear stock list and forecast the supply‐demand situation accurately. By this way, RFID can make stock volume reasonable. If retailers improve customers service and satisfaction degree, the sales volume will certainly largely increase. Suppliers can write commodity style, origin, producer, product batch and other detailed information into the tag. When the cargo box with tag passes through the read‐write equipment, the tag transmits the product data to the read‐write equipment. Then equipment downloads the data to the central processor to generate the management database of product list. Thus, the total process from production, stock to sale can be clearly handled. The purchase, stock and delivery process will be more convenient. With RFID technology, the company also may realize the real‐time monitoring on raw material, half finished product, end‐product, transportation, stock, delivery, putting on the shelf and sales even returning the goods (Ames, 2004). By this way, the company can control the stock reasonably, realizing the intelligent management of logistics.

THE TYPICAL APPLICATION OF RFID IN LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT Supply chain consists of all flowing process from raw materials to the final users. It includes choice of the suppliers, purchase of the materials, product design, material processing, order management, stock management, packing, delivery, store management and customer service, as well as the information management about product, product owner, location and time in the supply chain and so on. The purpose of RFID’s application to supply chain is to facilitate the communication between suppliers and customers (Keskilammi et al., 2003). Successful logistics management can integrate all supply activity accurately and integrate all participants into supply chain. According to the different functions of the organizations, participants should include supplier, deliverer, transporter, third‐party logistics company and information supplier. The typical application of RFID in logistics management is tracking. Technically, we can stick tags on the plate, packing box or equipment to automatically save and transmit the style of the equipment, sequence number and other information. The tag can transmit the information to read‐write equipment distance away, so the equipment and end‐product don’t need to be scanned by the handset to read bar code in warehouse and workshop. This can reduce omission, promote efficiency greatly. This application model can reduce the cost and clean up barriers in supply chain. By the close integration into supply chains, RFID may replace the bar code technology in future. The key of the modern logistics management is the automatically identification of product, container, vehicles and staff. Some information need to be transmitted and reflected real‐time in MIS system and ERP system in the company. RFID can totally accomplish these functions, thus, it can be applied universally in the logistics management. The application of RFID in the containers’ tracking and management: The ultra‐high frequency RFID technology has long identification distance, high speed to identify and low system cost. Thus, it is the best choice to tracking container and the plate. The best way to transport large amount cargo is the container transport. Container transport has good privacy, good packing, low cost, strong compatibility to the entertainment, high transport density and standard piles buttress. Generally speaking, containers are supplied to the company which needs them by specialized container Transport Company. After the arrival and upload of the cargo, containers will be recycling. In containers’ transporting and using process, the key link is tracking management, preventing the loss, larceny and damage of the containers; increase the turnover, so as to promote the use efficiency. To achieve the above goal, container transporting company needs to track containers in each link of the supply chain.

217 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

The application method of RFID recognition system in container management is to paste or mount the tags on the containers or the plates, through the hanging read write equipment or read‐write equipment installed in the forklift or handset read‐write equipment to recognize the dynamic information of the tags (Hook, 1997; Kremer, 1997). The information read can be transported to monitor or database. Container RFID recognition system can recognize 40 plates and 80 plastic containers simultaneously. The application of RFID in tracking the fruit and other kinds of food: The supply chain of fresh fruits from the origin to the final customers can also use RFID to track, to guarantee the quality and nutrition of the fruit. Paste or mount the tags on the fruit boxes, until the fruits are consumed. Tags can be recognized be read‐write equipment and the information will be transmitted to monitor or database real‐time. In the future, the household refrigerators will recognize the RFID tags of frozen food; remind you to buy fresh milk; throw off the expired food, decrease the consume of high Cholesterol food and so on (Kelepouris et al., 2007). Warehouse management: RFID can handle the information management about the cargo flowing effectively. Thus, it can enhance the cargo processing ability and the information amount of stock. Read‐write equipment is set on door of the warehouse. Every cargo unit has RFID tags and all the information of the tags is in the central computer of the warehouse. When the cargo is out of the warehouse or transported, the read‐write equipment can recognize and tell the central computer which trailer is working, which cargo is transported. By doing this, the management center can handle the amount of products going into storage and leaving storage, recognize cargo and determine the locations to track the products. In logistics management, the key technology is tracking the goods. RFID is very popular in the field of logistics management abroad. With the development of RFID and the decreasing cost, RFID system will be become more and more popular globally (Field, 2005).

THE APPLICATION PROCESS OF RFID IN LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT Although, logistics is one of the application areas of RFID, if RFID technology closely integrated into every process of supply chain, it may replace bar code technology in very near future and take revolutionary changes to logistics management (Fish and Forrest, 2005). Purchase, stock, packing, handling, transporting, delivery, processing, distribution, sales and service are all business links and process of logistics chain. They are complementing one another and mutually restricted. Corporations must understand and handle the commercial flow, logistics, information flow and cash flow’s directions and changes in all links of logistics accurately and real time. So that, the flow of the 4 segments, each process are coordinated with each other, only by this way corporations can maximize the potential economic and social benefits (Fish and Forrest, 2006; Loebbecke, 2007; Wamba et al., 2006; Koroneos, 2006). However, as the actual objects are moving, all sectors are in a loose and moving state. Accordingly, information often changes with the movement of object in different time and space. It affects the availability and sharing of information. Fortunately, RFID is the new technology in logistics management, which can solve the problems in data input/output, process control and tracking, reduce the error frequency (Tan and Raguraman, 2006). RFID plays a crucial role in many areas of logistics, including retail, stock, delivery and distribution process. Retail process: Through effective transport and inventory tracking, retailers can improve inventory management and timely replenishment, improve efficiency and reduce errors. Meanwhile, Tags monitor commodities with certain validity period and quality period; shops can use RFID system for automatic scanning and billing to replace the inefficient means of artificial collection. In the next few years, RFID tags will be widely used in terminal sales process in supply chain. Particularly in supermarkets, tags are capable of producing highly accurate business data by removing manual intervention. So it has a huge attraction. Currently, the world's retail giant Wal‐Mart is making full use of RFID technology, eliminating the use of the bar code, to further enhance the efficiency of the retail chain (Jiang‐Liang and Chih‐Hao, 2006; Hamdan et al., 2006).

218 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Storage process: In the warehouse management, RFID technology is usually used to store the goods and take stock inventory and operate goods in and out of stock automatically. Throughout, the warehouse management, combining receipt, collection, shipment plan set up by the supply chain planning system to RFID system (Glidden et al., 2004), it can complete all kinds of business operations with high efficiency, as designating storage areas collection and supplementary supply. RFID technology can increase the accuracy and operating fast, significantly improve service quality and reduce operating costs, save inventory space and labor cost by reading code. It could also reduce the overall loss due to the misplacement, wrong sending, theft, damage and inventory shipment error. RFID can provide the accurate information of the inventory, thus, management staff can quickly identify and correct operational ineffective situations to achieve rapid supply and reduce storage costs as much as possible (Imburgia, 2006). Delivery process: In delivery management area, we can paste RFID tags to transporting cargo and vehicles (such as to containers and to equipments) to track and control. RFID read‐write device is usually installed in transport lines in some checkpoints (e.g., doorpost or bridge pier) and warehouse, stations, docks, airports and other key locations (Nemeth et al., 2006). When the read write device receives the information from tags, it will convey the information with location data to the communication satellite, then satellite will transmit information to transport dispatching center. Distribution process: In distribution, introduction of RFID technology can greatly accelerate the speed of delivery, improve efficiency and accurate rate of selection and distribution process and reduce the probability of artificial participation and reduce distribution costs (Michael and McCathie, 2005). When all goods pasted with RFID tags enter distribution center, through the read write equipment on the door, the plate can read the information of tags. The system will compare the information to sender record, to detect possible errors and then update the location and state information on tags. This will ensure accurate inventory control, or even to master exactly cargo box volume, transshipment of origin and destination, as well as the expected arrival time and other relevant information.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; CONCLUSION what we RFID technology makes product inventory control and intelligent logistics technologies should realizable. With the help of tags, the company may realize the real‐time monitoring raw consider in material, half‐finished product, end‐product, transportation, stock, delivery, putting on developing the shelf and sales even returning the goods. For instance, through RFID technology, the our own operator can immediately know the situation and do rapid replenishment, to reduce 10‐ concept, the 30% safety stock and storage costs. It will make the whole logistics management conclusion transparent and efficient by increasing the automation and decreasing error rate. RFID of the technology is widely applicable to the storage shelves, transportation management, literature material tracking, delivery vehicles, supermarkets and other requiring non‐contact data source or collection and exchange occasions. the project results)

Further information:

219 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All 448.370.2182 Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus (please __ Information needs of Businesses mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence __ Information needs of policy domains the __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, information does storage, communication etc. of information) focus on; __ Information organization for farm cooperation multiple marks _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or possible) between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: Organic Waste Reuse for Urban Agriculture

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: Organic Waste Reuse

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems(ICECS), 2010 Literature “Traceability from “farm to fork” using RFID technology” source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project relevance INTRODUCTION

Rapid increasing breeds of livestock and growing automation of the livestock industry has brought a pressing need for more reliable identification of livestock. Electronic farm products identification and tracking is now fast becoming more and more important in the new economic global environment to control livestock on the outbreak and eradication of diseases, limiting economic losses and control of residues. Recently appeared diseases, outbreak of "Mad Cow scare", "Nipah virus", "Birds flu", etc. have greatly intensified the evaluation of the various electronic RFID systems for an effective lifetime identification of livestock for food safety, health, breeding and diseases control and management. Legislation and regulations all over the world require only minimal information to be kept for traceability and each nation has its own

220 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

traceability system which is incompatible with the others. These lines describe the design and implementation of a pilot RFID‐based traceability system for the animal food supply chain which is compliant with EU regulations and can be used both for the wholesale and the retail sector.

Traceability in the food industry must aim to create a link between the various steps in the entire food chain, so‐called "from farm to fork". These steps must cover animal production at the farm, slaughtering, processing in meat plants and other food premises, distribution to wholesalers and retailers and right through to the moment the food is placed on the consumer's table. Effective tracing of animals can provide greater confidence in certification schemes, especially regarding their disease free status. Traceability provides the ability to identifY and track a product or a component to its point of origin. Product traceability is very important to minimize the economic consequences of a recall. If a particular lot of a critical component is found to be defective after being used in a product that is already sold, traceability provides a means of identifying the units for recall.

Electronic identification for traceability of livestock industry based on Radio Frequency Identification Tags (RFIDs), has many advantages for farm management. First, it can be regarded as a considerable improvement in relation to visual identification of numbers. The main advantages are the elimination of labor costs and the decrease of incorrect readings from 6% to 0.1 % . RFID also facilitates the use of automated housing systems and combines the advantages of the conventional loose housing systems (relative freedom for the animals, attending some animal welfare demands) with the advantages of the stanchion barns (control of single animals). allowing the automation of, for example, feed monitoring and rationing, weighing and drafting can implement sophisticated livestock management schemes. Other important applications enabled by injected electronic transponders are improvement of disease control and eradication as well as fraud control. Also within the EU, it is no longer allowed to eradicate some contagious diseases by means of vaccination. In case of an outbreak, it is very important to trace back the origin, movements and contacts between animals to be able to stop the further dissemination of contagious diseases.

The availability and scope of database systems for livestock tracking and tracing varies widely among EU Member States. Legislation requires only minimal data to be retained, and since no international standards have been adopted, each national system varies in terms of the data maintained, the format of those data and the data standards used. Furthermore, within these national systems, little, if any, consideration appears to have been given to the requirement to facilitate inter‐operability and efficient exchange of data with the European Commission or with other competent authorities. Existing deficiencies in the harmonization of national data formats and recording requirements inhibit rapid and accurate exchange of data, leading to inefficiency, the opportunity for fraud and lapses in compliance with agreed veterinary and trade protocols. The need for the creation of a trans‐European electronic data service infrastructure is recognized. The volume of transnational movements, the need to ensure adequate surveillance and to effectively monitor and control the movement of livestock throughout the EU require the use of efficient information systems to enable the rapid exchange of information between competent authorities in a timely, meaningful, coherent and auditable manner.

221 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

In order to develop an information model for traceability, we should first outline the requirements with regard to traceability in the supply chain. It is a common belief between researchers that all traceable items in the supply chain should be uniquely identified. This highest possible traceability resolution level raises the complexity of the information to be managed and raises the management costs. On the other hand, identification may also take place at case, pallet or even batch/lot level. As we decrease identification resolution both traceability accuracy and information management costs decrease.

Existing traceability systems implement identification at batch/lot level using either barcode EAN‐UCC 128 or, even worse, less informal non‐standardized numbering. The problem created using lot numbering is that each partner has to synchronize his data with the data of the lot producer. Only if all partners in the supply chain synchronize their data, traceability becomes feasible. Applying RFlD tags on the packages of each lot can solve this problem. All chain partners can use the EPC for identification with no need for synchronization and fear for data inconsistency. The potential benefits that rise with the RFlD use include reduced labor costs and mass customization, however, the full benefits of RFlD will be achieved only when all firms within a supply chain implement the technology.

Currently, each partner in the supply chain implements traceability internally and then shares information with the rest of the supply chain partners for forward traceability to be enabled. The proposed architecture supports RFlD‐enabled traceability for a supply chain network and can be used with the global EPC Network or any other custom made network. The objective of this system is to make it easy, simple and costless for an SME producer and its supply chain partners to link and share traceability information which can be finally used from the consumers through one retail store (e.g. a big Supermarket).

Each partner of the supply chain has its own internal traceability as well as it shares the information needed to the following chain through the EPC Global Network, or an ad‐hoc custom network. All the partners that form the "farm to fork" supply chain are shown in Fig. 1 as well as the databases used for internal traceability and the workflow of the product.

Starting from the first partner of the supply chain, which is the farm, the animals are using RPID tags either as ear tags or ruminal bolus. Information concerning breeding is kept in the farm. In the slaughterhouse, which is the 2nd partner of the supply chain, the living animals (traceable entities) which are shipped from the farm are read automatically using RFlD readers which are hosted in the facilities of each partner. The information that concerns each animal can be found from the slaughterhouse through the IP network as the farm has uploaded only this specific information. Carcasses are grouped in production batch and are put in cases or pallets. Each one of these, which form the traceable entity, is carrying an RFlD tag. Traceable entities are shipped to the next supply chain stage and form an input production batch for it. A production batch may contain many traceable entities. In the processing stage installed RFlD readers read automatically the traceable entities that have been shipped from the slaughterhouse. Parts or pieces of one or more traceable entities are used to create internal batches for processing. In the processing stage a cut is divided into smaller portions which are then packed.

Each one of the packages holds a unique RFlD tag and the unique batch from where it comes

222 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

from is assigned to this RFID tag by the internal database used in the processing area. Moreover, all the information that comes from all the previous stages are recorder to this database. These packages are shipped by the distribution network to the retail shops where they are read from the installed readers. Finally, with an application inside the retail store the consumers can have access to the traceability information on a monitor by just passing the package with the RFID tag from a reader.

The traceability information model supports properties and property value information for both traceable entities and batches. The term "batch" refers to traceable entities that are used internally in a supply chain stage. Information about batches is not exposed to the supply chain as a whole, even though it is recorded for traceability reasons and it is made available upon request. Fig. 2 shows the relation between traceable entities and batches and the scope in which these are used.

Fig.1.Traceable entities and hatches for each stage

The system architecture used follows a hybrid approach consisting of distributed elements and a centralized information system. The central information system holds only the information regarding the traceable entities and the rest of information is held locally in the partners' information systems. The integration between the two systems is based on the use of web services technology and the information can be accesses through an IP network. The centralized information system is owned and operated from the SME. The central information system gives the available information to a specific partner only regarding the products observed in his facilities by the RFID readers or products that were either produced or affected by him in some way and are now in another partner's facilities. Thus, information security and efficient information management is achieved.

The database, with the relational database entity‐relations model diagram shown in Fig. 3, has been implemented to support the traceability from "farm to fork". It consists of seven tables from which the SME and the retail stores record or have access to records of the traceability

223 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

and use it according to their needs.

For example an animal is uniquely identified by the animal RFID in the Animal Entity Table. When it is slaughtered it becomes a carcass identified in the corresponding Table by the same unique animal code. A carcass can be cut in many pieces producing many carcass entities, each one identified by a unique Carcass part RFID in the Carcass Entities (parts) Table. The animal ID is used as a secondary key in this table to be able to trace back the animal that generated a given carcass entity in case of a recall. Once it arrives to the processing facility, a carcass part may be used to produce several Processed (meat) Units, identified in the corresponding Table by a unique Processing ID. The carcass entity RFID from which a specific unit is produced is maintained in this Table as secondary key to allow backwards tracing if necessary. Finally a unit of processed meat may be used to produce many Packaged Entities, each one identified by a unique Package RFID. The batch number and processing date are used as secondary keys in this table pointing to the processed units that may have been used to produce the specific package. If a defective package is found e.g. at a supermarket, the processing facility may locate the specific batch to blame. It is also possible to recall all batches produced at a specific date.

Lessons learned Specify (at least 0,5 pages): for project (very All partners are required to participate for a full traceability system and since the majority of important; what the companies producing and distributing food are SMEs, the system has to be affordable. The we should system here designed, developed and tested provides a simple solution with regards to this consider in aspect to the problem. An information infrastructure for RFID enabled traceability in the animal developing our own concept, the supply chain has been presented, also extrapolated to other farm product’s traceability. The conclusion of the infrastructure aims at providing a full and verifiable traceability in a cost effective and efficient literature source manner for the whole supply chain. The architecture is based on standard implementations and or the project interfaces, and follows all the directives and EU regulations. No information altering is allowed results) from the system especially for the last stage. Finally, the deployment of the system by the involved partners requires only the installation of RPID reader devices and a PC and of course access to the internet for connecting to the central information system.

Further Optional information:

224 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: RFID Provider of this information (please specify): Name: András Sebők e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CBHU

Background X Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the X_ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks X Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation X Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) X IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Agriculture, specify product: ______X Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. E. Mohr (2006): The University of St. Gallen, Graduate Shool of Business Literature source, project Administration, economics, Law and Social Sciences (HSG) hereby name and web site, etc.) consents to the printing of the present dissertation, without herby expressing any opinion on the views herein expressed. St. Gallen, January Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and barcode technology are two examples of automatic identification technologies. The thesis deals with the use of RFID technology in the FMCG supply chain at the case and pallet level, based on open standards as proposed by the Auto‐ ID Center and EPCglobal. RFID tag can be replaced the fixed date with a self‐adaptive best‐before date. The tag measures transport parameters directly inside the product, analyses them for harmful effects on the product quality, and allows remote access to these data at any point of time. These tags measure the performance of the refrigeration process by temperature, air‐velocity, and ice‐content sensors. RFID can be used in twelve areas. These applications are: • Out‐of‐stock

225 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

• Order reconciliation • Operational efficiency • Handling efficiency • Inventory reduction • Shrinkage • Theft • Unsaleables • Traceability • Production planning • Promotion execution • Product diversion Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; This improvement is important because: what we should consider • The current application scenarios focus on read‐only tags and in developing our own do not assume re‐writing the tag. concept, the conclusion • RFID can be a means to prevent counterfeiting. of the literature source • There can be problems with reading barcodes. or the project results) • Traceability systems for products can help to improve supply management through better tracking of products, and facilitate the tracing of products for food safety and quality, and also differentiate and market food products that require consumer trust. • RFID can reduce the cost of product recalls by limiting the amount of recalled products and by reducing recall processing cost and can also reduce the on‐going data capturing cost for an existing traceability system by automating product identification. • RFID can reduce the unnecessary awaiting which can cause damage in the quality of the products. • The price reduction of the tags would be useable for wide range of application in the future and maybe it can be run on the internet. Further information: Optional

226 Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e-mail: Project Partner: NKUA Note: this information comes direct from, AgInsurance project site as there is a dedicated section on identified risks. SmartAggrifood could build on these or use them for initial analysis.

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market (please mark what the software) information is based __ Expert experience, specify who: on) ______Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the _X_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains _X_ Information needs of consumers the information does __ Information needs of policy focus on; multiple __ Information organization for logistics or transparency marks possible) (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: Smart Farming __ Food, specify product: ______

Source Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Index-Based (where to find; e.g. Insurance Schemes for Optimal Risk Management in Agriculture, Literature source, AgInsurance FP7 Project, project name and web http://aginsuranceproject.com/index.php site, etc.)

Content with project Major Risks Faced by Farmers relevance Mark Wenner and Diego Arias from Inter American

Development Bank defined in that risk is an unavoidable but

a manageable element in the agricultural sector. It is observed that because of global warming and greenhouse effect, there is an increase in quantity and intensity of natural meteorological based disasters. Tanfer Dinler (2003) defined agriculture as an open-topped factory and stated

227 that natural risks lead to significant financial losses and these losses menace world economy dramatically. Besides this, he also indicates that recent global climate changes and unplanned construction bring initially flood and after drought. To illustrate, damage of flood in Europe in 2002 was 15 billion dollars. In European Commission study on agricultural insurance schemes published in December, 2006, risks in agriculture were grouped in two groups as follows:  Price Risks: Price risks occur when agriculture trade is liberalizated.  Production Risks: Production risks which originates from adverse meteorology or quality requirements on animals and plants diseases across borders. Hardaker, Huirne and Anderson classified the most important agricultural risks as follows:  Human or Personal Risk: This risk is about health problem or death of the farm operator.  Asset Risk: This risk is about theft, fire and other damages or losses.  Production or Yield Risk: This risk includes weather risks and plant and animal diseases. When livestock sector is considered, the production and yield risk is less substantial because weather affects this sector on a small scale.  Price Risk: This risk includes the price fluctuations after production modification.  Institutional Risk: This risk is pertinent to policy changes which affect the agricultural issues.  Financial Risk: Financial risks are associated with the possible increase in interest of a mortgage, insufficient liquidity and loss of equity. Mark Wenner and Diego Arias diversified and listed types of risk in their study stated before as follows:  Climatic: Hail, frost, drought, flood, wind, fire, snow, ice  Sanitary: Plagues, diseases  Geological: Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions  Market: Domestic and international price variability, changes in quality standards  Man made: War, financial crisis, collapse of legal institutions

Lessons learned for SmartAgrifood could consider such (and relevant) risks

228 project (very identification for initial techno-economic analyses and important; what we scenarios feasebility. should consider in For example, initial considerations for prototypes and the developing our own concept, the pilot could use such information. conclusion of the Indicatively: literature source or the  Production risks (meteorology, etc) could drive to project results) utilisation of dedicated weather forecasting systems

in the field,  Plant diseases identification could be addressed by automated pattern recognition  Asset risks could be addressed through deploymen of security sub-system in the field, etc..

Further information: Optional

229 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Supply Chain Event Management – an approach for smart(er) logistics in the food supply chain Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Ralph Tröger e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1

Background -x- Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please __ Expert experience, specify who: ______mark what __ Other, specify: Standard______the information is based on) Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please __ Information needs of consumers mark the __ Information needs of policy competence -x- Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus -x- Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks -x- System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) -x- IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Intersectoral applicable

Source Nissen, Volker: Supply Chain Event Management. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik (5), 2002, pp. 477- (where to 480. find; e.g. Bodendorf, Freimut; Zimmermann, Roland: Proactive Supply-Chain Event Management with Literature Agent Technology. In: International Journal of Electronic Commerce (4), 2005, pp. 57- source, 89. project Müller, J., Tröger, R., Alt, R., Zeier, A. (2009): Gain in Transparency vs. Investment in the EPC name and Network – Analysis and Results of a Discrete Event Simulation Based on a Case Study web site, in the Fashion Industry. Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on etc.) Service Oriented Computing, SOC-LOG Workshop, Stockholm.

Tröger, R., Alt, R., Service-oriented Supply Chain Event Management - A Case Study from the Fashion Industry, in: Abramowicz, W., Alt, R., Fähnrich, K.-P., Franczyk, B., Maciaszek, L.A. (Hrsg.), Informatik 2010 - Business Process and Service Science - Proceedings of ISSS and BPSC, Vol. P-177, Band 3, Bonn 2010, S. 31-42.

Content . Introduction: Supply chain management (SCM) aims at improving the allocation, with project management and control of logistic resources. One key concept within SCM is relevance SCEM which may be characterized as an approach to achieve inter-organizational visibility over logistical processes enabling companies to detect critical exceptions

230 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

in their supply chains in time. Thus, measures against those “events” can be taken proactively before they have negative impact on given business plans.

. Functionalities: Most authors agree on the perception that SCEM encompasses five core functionalities (see figure beneath): (1) Monitor, (2) Notify, (3) Simulate, (4) Control , and (5) Measure.

. Relevance for SmartAgriFood: More efficient and effective SCM/ logistics in the food supply chain

Lessons . SCEM is already used in various industries (retail, apparel, aircraft, etc.) learned for . Due to its characteristics (global structures, perishable products, …) the food project (very supply chain is highly vulnerable to any kind of events (i.e. critical exceptions) important; . Thus, intelligent systems are required in order to support the process owners in what we detecting critical deviations; get notified about them, and react appropriately. should . SCEM systems also enable companies to optimize their logistics structures in the consider in middle and long term developing . Due to its fine-granular data which is accessible in real-time (when/ why/ what our own and where), SCEM is even more beneficial in combination with the EPC network concept, the . Examples of critical events: delays in production/ transport/ etc.; force majeur; conclusion quality issues; … of the . Examining SCEM could contribute to SmartAgriFood’s goal to make the food literature supply chain more efficient and effective (“smart logistics”) source or the project results)

Further SCEM functionalities information Continuous activity Event specific activities Ex post activity :

Monitor Notify Simulate Control Measure

• Business object observation • Notification of process • Calculation of impacts • Selection of action alter- • Data collection and (target/ actual comparison) owners on subsequent processes native by process owner processing • Detection and prioritization • Carrying out escalation • Offering of options for • Execution of new/ modi- • Identification of patterns, of events mechanism into action fied business processes trends and potentials execution if necessary

231 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Nikola Vucic e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: HWDU

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components _X_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source EU FP7 SENSEI Project, www.sensei‐project.eu (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project In the SENSEI project, a framework for integrating various types of relevance wireless sensor and actuator networks (WSANs) into the (future) internet was developed. The framework offers a possibility for the users

(e.g., people, software applications) to locate the needed resources. Typical resources are sensors, actuators, possibly with the processed data. Resources can not only be found, but they are also allowed to advertise their properties. The users are enabled to control the actuators (e.g., heating/cooling elements, motors, displays, etc.), as well. Further, the system is able to gather the context information collected from the sensors, as well as the context information which stems from other sources (e.g., cellular location systems, etc.). Both resources and users are abstracted in such a way that a rather general platform could be created. The framework assumes namely a central system domain connected with the real‐world “islands” (correspond to WSANs). The issues of resource identification, efficient queries, and security were handled, as well.

The generality of the SENSEI platform and its ability to allow simultaneous access to various WSANs in real time make it an

232 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

interesting reference for the SmartAgriFood project

Lessons learned for A trial scenario in the project assumed the deployment of sensors in a project (very important; public transportation systems (city buses), which measured what we should consider meteorological/environmental data and provided the users in developing our own (commuters) the real‐time information about the location of the bus. concept, the conclusion Modifications of the concept in order to support intelligent cargo of the literature source concepts, which are of interest for the Smart Agri‐Logistics use case in or the project results) the SmartAgriFood project are imaginable. Smart Farming, relying significantly on wireless sensor networks, might also profit from the developed SENSEI concept.

Regarding technical requirements for WSAN, the project confirmed the importance of several topics which will be of interest for the SmartAgriFood project, such as: ‐ Energy efficient network design (energy efficient multi‐hop routing and clustering). ‐ Sink mobility in wireless sensor networks for prolonging the network lifetime (applicable, e.g., in Smart Farming). ‐ Distributed signal processing in wireless sensor nodes to reduce the computational complexity at the central unit. ‐ Outlier detection. ‐ Problem and/or event detection (with applications of artificial intelligence).

Finally, the discussion about the standards (IEEE 1451, ANSI N42.42, CBRN‐CCSI, OGC sensor description standards, ZigBee), shown in Deliverable D2.1 of the project, should be exploited, in order to find the most suitable solution in the agriculture domain.

Further information: Optional

233 Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e-mail: Project Partner: NKUA

Background _X Literature _ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the _X_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the _X_ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: Smart Farming __ Food, specify product: ______

Source [1] D. Papadimitriou et al, ETP Vision on Future Internet, available at (where to find; e.g. http://www.future- Literature source, project internet.eu/fileadmin/documents/reports/Cross- name and web site, etc.) ETPs_FI_Vision_Document_v1_0.pdf [2] S. Barber, M. Bevan, ETP-Plants for the future, Strategic Research agenda 2025, available at http://www.plantsforthefuture.eu/catalog/TP/Launch_25June07/T P_SRA_Summary.pdf [3] A. Bazzanella, ETP-SusChem, Strategic Research Agenta, http://www.suschem.org/ [4] ETP- Food for life, http://etp.ciaa.be/asp/index.asp [5] W. Mayer, Farm-level data integration: future problems and consequences for public and private structures, available at eaae- seminar.univpm.it/system/files/attachments/contribution/22/pdf/ mayer.pdf [6] Quantum Growth Beneficial Bacteria Radically Improves Plant Growth, http://www.smartfarmingsolutions.com/thoughts.html

234 Content with project Smart Farming is about individual treatment of animals, plants or relevance m2 of land at the right place and right time through sophisticated sensing & monitoring, decision support and precise application to improve efficiency, productivity, quality, flexibility and chain responsiveness. Smart Farming is also about innovation. It is about innovative and efficient use of decision tools, resources and techniques that, with automated means, support farm management. That should lead to both increased revenue, in terms of higher productivity and improved cost control Error! Reference source not found.]. Take for example, the long use of beneficial bacteria; some are essential in transforming atmospheric nitrogen into ammonium, which the plant can uptake. Other bacteria transport nutrient to the root zone; while others kill harmful pathogens Error! Reference source not found.. Precision Farming is, based on lots of detailed data of the soil, the variable rate application with m2 detail for fertilization and spraying on the fields. The technology needed is the input of e.g. soil maps, soil lab results, sensor logs Error! Reference source not found.. Virtual Farming is the integration of several small plots – small and bad shaped – to a larger plot that can be easier maintained with machinery. The cost difference might be 50%, 100% or more depending on size and shape. When it is possible to protocol with precision farming the costs and later on also the earnings per m2, we can also define how much farmer A or farmer B gets in return, precise calculated. The first test cases are running in Germany with excellent results and also acceptance of the farmers based on significant cost reduction Error! Reference source not found.. On the other hand, our telecommunication background to back up the Smart Farming project is rather poor. Since the backbone of this project is the ability to constantly monitor certain characteristics/ parameters of plants, fruits, animals etc and the ability to maintain/use/program remotely certain different sensor webs, Future Internet and its beneficial services is a prerequisite for the whole project to succeed Error! Reference source not found.].

Lessons learned for Certain trends/visions/goals concerning Smart Farming begin to project (very important; take form: first of all, the notion of the “Internet of Things” what we should consider dictates that each physical object will have its own virtual in developing our own representation via a virtual object and its very own IP address thus concept, the conclusion allowing us to easily use them remotely through the object's of the literature source functions. The objects can be either a sensor allowing us to parse or the project results) data, either a feeding machine enabling us to feed some cattle, for example, remotely Error! Reference source not found.. Moreover,

235 the development of technologies for reduction/ elimination of hazards at the level of primary production, plus the prediction and monitoring of the behavior of relevant known and emerging chemical hazards including toxins of biological origin is a necessity. Chemical contaminants represent known and potential health hazards to humans, most commonly by long-term exposure, through the consumption of contaminated foods Error! Reference source not found.. In the same field, research is needed towards developing new artificial microorganisms (synthetic biology/ industrial biotechnology) plus healthier food Enzymes (which are used in the processing of a variety of foods) to produce safer products of improved quality and nutritional value by increasing the stability and bioavailability of vitamins for example [3]. In addition, research is also needed towards improving the plants themselves, enhance crop monitoring, reduce the environmental impact of agriculture, enhance the competitiveness of European agriculture, industry and forestry and produce better quality, healthy, affordable, diverse food, offering consumers in and beyond Europe, real options to improve their quality of life Error! Reference source not found.. Finally, the development of better and more reliable biosensors and biochips (making them quicker and more practical to use), would enable us to ensure better quality of our products and at the same time make the whole process less intrusive towards the animal's -for example- lives/ habits making the process cleaner and cheaper for food and feed supplementation Error! Reference source not found..

Further information: Optional

236 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities

Contributors: All

Inhalt

AmI@Netfood ...... 1 AMI-4-SME ...... 3 E-Mult ...... 5 IBIS ...... 7 K-NET ...... 9 Mobility@forest ...... 11 P2P ...... 13 WEB-2-SME ...... 15

Name of this information item: AmI@Netfood

Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Florian Meyer; Harald Sundmaeker e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Project Partner: ATB Institut für Angewandte Systemtechnik Bremen GmbH

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is __ Other, specify: ______based on)

Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence do- _X_ Information needs of policy mains the informa- __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, tion does focus on; storage, communication etc. of information) multiple marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 1 of 16 237 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. http://www.ami-netfood.com Literature source, project name and web site, etc.)

Content The objective of the AMI@Netfood project is to provide a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for Scientific Research and Technology Development of IST tech- with project rele- nologies and tools applicable to agri-food and rural domain. vance The SRA consists of a long-term vision and policy implementation work plan for the development and application of Ambient Intelligence and Collaborative Work- ing technologies that will in the future support the implementation of collaborative working strategies in the agri-food and rural sector. The project investigated on most recent progress in AMI and Collaborative Working technologies applicable to agri-food industries aiming to map needs created and available technologies and identify the further RTD activities required to meet these needs. These technologies will enable the transformation of agri-food industries into fully Networked Collaborative Businesses being able to produce and supply higher quality extended products and services.

Lessons learned Different key issues have been identified to be addressed for application of ICT in agri-food and rural domains. One topic which requires a multidisciplinary analysis for project (very im- is to integrate AmI-technologies into the Future Internet focusing on areas like portant; what we traceability and collaborative working environments inside the agri-food sector. should consider in developing our own Especially the use in rural environments is putting high demands on ICT applica- concept, the conclu- tions and infrastructure. sion of the literature source or the project results)

Further informa- http://ami- tion: netfood.com/Deliverables/AMINetfood%20Strategic%20Research%20Agenda.pdf

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 2 of 16 238 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Name of this information item: AMI-4-SME

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is __ Other, specify: ______based on)

Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence do- __ Information needs of policy mains the informa- __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, tion does focus on; storage, communication etc. of information) multiple marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______ Manufacturing/ Processing

Source http://www.ami4sme.org/ (where to find; e.g. Scholze, Sebastian; Sundmaeker, Harald; Kirchhoff, Uwe; Ambient intelli- Literature source, gence Technologies for Industrial Environments in Manufacturing SME's. ICE project name and 2008, 14th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising; Costa Ca- web site, etc.) parica, Portugal; 23.-25.06.08; Pages 71-78. Stokic, Dragan; Kirchhoff, Uwe; Sundmaeker, Harald; Ambient intelligence in Manufacturing Industry: Control System Point of View. Paper at the Control and Applications 2006 conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 24 - 26, 2006. Gill, Simrn Kaur, Cormican, Kathryn; Support ambient intelligence solutions for small to medium size enterprises: Typologies and taxonomies for developers. Paper at the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, ICE 2006, Milan, Italy, 26-28 June 2006. Bieker, Ulrich; A Reconfigurable Form Generator to Capture Data by Speech on Mobile Devices. Paper at the Conference Elektronische Sprachverarbei- tung - ESSV 2006, Freiberg, Germany, 28.-30. August 2006. Kirchhoff, Uwe; Stokic, Dragan; Sundmaeker, Harald; AmI Technologies Based Business Improvement in Manufacturing SMEs. Paper at the eChal- lenges e-2006 Conference; 25 - 27 October, Barcelona, Spain.

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 3 of 16 239 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Content The AMI-4-SME project is aiming at a "Revolution in Industrial Environments" - Finding new technological and organizational approaches to enable Manu- with project rele- facturing SMEs to use Ambient Intelligence Technology for Systemic Innova- vance tion. The next revolutionary step in process innovation in industry is to radically innovate the whole industrial working environment, by focusing it upon the main actor in industry: the human actor, and by applying emerging systemic innovation approaches. The application of Ambient Intelligence (AmI) Tech- nology can be considered as a key enabler to achieve such advances in the working environment. And especially SMEs need to be systematically enabled to actively take part in this revolution.

Lessons learned The ICT based functionalities and specifically the future internet potentials shall realise more intelligent features within business processes. This requires for project (very im- a new dimension of awareness concerning context and current status of portant; what we processes. On top of that, the information exchange shall consider both ex- should consider in plicit as well as implicit information exchange for a transparent support of developing our own human end-users. The definition of AmI for manufacturing and the innovation concept, the conclu- methodology shall be taken into account when aiming at the realisation of sion of the literature intelligent and added value functionalities. Moreover, the developed building source or the project blocks were taking into account the support of application distribution in de- results) centralised and decoupled organisations/ actors, even independent/ complementary to existing legacy systems. Further informa- Optional tion:

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 4 of 16 240 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Name of this information item: E-Mult

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is __ Other, specify: ______based on)

Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence do- __ Information needs of policy mains the informa- __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, tion does focus on; storage, communication etc. of information) multiple marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______Recycling

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.)

Content The recycling is the area urgently needing introduction of advanced ICT networking, keeping in mind that: with project relevance 1. for recycling, being crucial in achieving a global sustainable development through saving primary materials, and in drastically reducing global pollution, an interregional networking is the only way to assure sustainability, and 2. the requirements upon networking in recycling are exceptionally complex. The networking of recycling SMEs on transnational basis, especially in new and old Europe is highly required and a prerequisite. The project developed a set of advanced agent-based ICT solutions, to support establishment and operation of dynamic multi-regional and transnational networks of car recycling SMEs, and an appropriate methodology. The specific complexity is the multi-threaded character of networks, i.e. the participation of each SME in several value chains causing strong networks interconnection. To achieve targeted highly dynamic business models, the following results were elabo-

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 5 of 16 241 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

rated: 1. Set of free SW Building Blocks of a highly scalable, open architecture, agent-based platform for operation of dynamic recycling SME networks, including powerful distributed decision support system for network management and infrastructure for knowledge sharing, 2. methodology to model, establish and operate these networks, 3. 2 BCs addressing establishment of 2 SME networks, from new and old EU countries, and enabling the verification of the developed results. The E-Mult system was developed to build dynamic networks and provides an innovative infrastructure for their operation. The highly diverse and flexible ICT solution enables SMEs to perform on a par with other industry and to give them an extreme flexibility, enabling them to go beyond the capabilities of the current approach in many other sectors.

Lessons learned E-Mult is focused on a strong SOA-approach which leads to different security issues, especially in high confidential B2B operations and communication. for project (very important; what we Before an SME can use a service offered by a different company it must en- should consider in sure that this service is trustworthy and which information can be shared. developing our own Besides common known web services also agents can be seen as services, concept, the conclu- whose increased mobility also amplifies the security issues. While lacking on sion of the literature new fundamental approaches to enable authentication and authorization the source or the project acceptance and trust in this new technology is limited. results) Further informa- Optional tion:

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 6 of 16 242 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Name of this information item: IBIS

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is __ Other, specify: ______based on)

Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence do- __ Information needs of policy mains the informa- _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, tion does focus on; storage, communication etc. of information) multiple marks possible) _X_ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: application case from maize harvest, but supporting the information exchange in the harvest process __ Food, specify product: ______

Source top agrar; 4/2008; Wenn die Waage mit dem Schlepper spricht; S112-113. (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.)

Content The objective of IBIS is to support the tracking and documentation of harvest processes with a mobile, distributed and partly decoupled system. All the with project rele- information from the field to the subsequent processes is collected – including vance the field identification, the crop details, the involved organisations and individuals. Each process step is supported with an autonomous system tracking relevant data from the harvest itself till the delivery on a weighing system. The system is based on PDAs installed in all needed agricultural machineries (e.g. harvester, transport vehicle). The PDAs are using GPS and also mobile communication to support wireless internet connection and a Wi-Fi adapter to allow near range communication to fulfill different scenario:  Inform about (dis-)charging operations, malfunctions, filling height, etc.  Inform about the next harvesting lot

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 7 of 16 243 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

 Request new transport vehicle  Communicate with weighing-terminals Lessons learned One major problem was the possible lack of an internet-connection on the fields. To solve this problem the IBIS-project supports different communica- for project (very im- tion-channels including asynchronous and ad-hoc solutions. This allows mul- portant; what we tiple nodes to transfer data even if one or more nodes don’t have an internet should consider in connection. developing our own concept, the conclu- One option is to create an ad-hoc Wi-Fi connection to realize nearby commu- sion of the literature nication between nodes (e.g. harvester and weighing terminal). Another one source or the project is to use SMS for asynchronous data transfer, which is more reliable in rural results) environment than a wireless internet-connection. Further informa- Optional tion:

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 8 of 16 244 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Name of this information item: K-NET

Background __ Literature X Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: the information is __ Other, specify: ______based on)

Focus X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence do- __ Information needs of policy mains the informa- __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, tion does focus on; storage, communication etc. of information) multiple marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Website: www.k-net-fp7.eu Literature source, project name and web site, etc.)

Content The objective of K-NET is to explore the fundamental problem: how different services to manage social interactions in a networked enterprise can be used with project rele- to enhance knowledge and knowledge management (KM) services. vance The key hypothesis of K-NET is that the context under which knowledge is collectively generated and managed can be used to enhance this knowledge for its further use within intra-enterprise collaboration. By extracting the context under which the knowledge is generated in a network (e.g. goals, teams, temporal and spatial aspects), it is possible to enrich it to be more effectively used within future work. In order to explore such hypothesis, the project intends to answer several problems: how to efficiently monitor/trace a process of generation/usage of knowledge in the network so that this knowledge can be re-used for future work; how to extract context from this process; and how to enrich the knowledge generated with extracted context to support knowledge sharing in future network activities.

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 9 of 16 245 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Lessons learned The retrieval, monitoring and sharing of knowledge in K-NET is limited to an intra-enterprise scope. The reason for this limitation has several reasons. One for project (very im- basic factor is the huge amount of traffic generated by K-Net when monitoring portant; what we and indexing knowledge-items such as documents. should consider in developing our own Another more challenging factor is to discover the location of relevant know- concept, the conclu- ledge and how to access it. sion of the literature The current internet doesn’t offer sophisticated ways to find and retrieve in- source or the project formation for a given “thing” (e.g. product). results) Further informa- Optional tion:

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 10 of 16 246 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Name of this information item: Mobility@forest

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is __ Other, specify: ______based on)

Focus _x_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence do- __ Information needs of policy mains the informa- _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, tion does focus on; storage, communication etc. of information) multiple marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _x_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______Forestry

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. http://www.mobility-forest.de/ Literature source, Uli Riemer: "Mobility@forest: Satellitengestützte mobile Datenerfassung am project name and Beispiel der Betriebsinventur" Seiten 19-21 in: FVA-einblick, Nr.2/3, Oktober web site, etc.) 2009, Jahrgang 13, ISSN 1614-7707 Harald Sundmaeker: "Abschied von Papier und Stift: Mobility@forest entwickelt neue Technologien für die Arbeit im Wald" in: FORST und HOLZ, 7/8-2008, www.forstundholz-online.de, Seite 56-58.

Content For private and corporate forest owners, consulting services are offered free of charge by the provincial forest administrations. These consultation services with project rele- are aimed at broadly implementing societal objectives and supporting forest vance owners with respect to exercising their rights and performing their responsibilities. Forest consulting services can be considered a key for utilizing the unexploited potentials of private and corporate forests. Currently, however, consulting turns out to be an intuitive communication process with a low degree of standardization and a high expenditure of time. The research project Mobility@forest had the objective to eliminate existing deficits of forest consulting and to develop computerized support for the operational consulting procedure, what is currently still missing. The systematic approach of using comprehensive, individually configurable software compo-

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 11 of 16 247 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

nents to expeditiously reproduce forest business processes in a mobile and computer-supported manner was exemplarily applied to the reference process “forest consulting”. The business process “consulting” was therefore structured into five steps in order to elaborate the computerized support providing IT support during data acquisition, the interpretation of spatial data, scenario comparisons, approximate calculations, the utilization of relevant technical and spatial data, and the final documentation. The system was tested and assessed in a close collaboration with the state enterprise Sach- senforst (Saxony) and forestry professionals from Thuringia and Branden- burg. On top of that, the project was addressing the data acquisition in the scope of forest planning and of forest inventory analysis/documentation. These business cases were realised in close cooperation with the German state Baden- Württemberg, equipping the forestry experts with mobile and interoperable devices that facilitate both data acquisition and provision of digital information in the forest. The data handling includes new & historical forestry data as well as modules for presenting and generating geographical information.

Lessons learned Concerning the need of connectivity in this centralized approach the development of a ubiquitous network is essential and a big problem in the secluded for project (very im- workspace of a forester which also applies for farming activities. Additionally portant; what we approaches like IoS & IoT are relying on a stable internet connection with a should consider in sufficient bandwidth. developing our own concept, the conclu- Another problem is to hold and secure the connectivity of a device with the sion of the literature server without limiting the mobility. When traveling from one cell to another it source or the project is not guaranteed that the devices keeps its IP-address, which leads to a re- results) connect and re-secure of the connection. To solve this problem, future developments should consider FI protocols like MobileIP or use a decentralized approach which avoids the need of a persistent connection.

Further informa- Optional tion:

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 12 of 16 248 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Name of this information item: P2P

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who: ______the information is __ Other, specify: ______based on)

Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence do- __ Information needs of policy mains the informa- _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, tion does focus on; storage, communication etc. of information) multiple marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______X_ Food, specify product: meat______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.)

Content A credible traceability along an agri-food value chain depends on the capability to quickly collect and provide access to reliable information in the different with project rele- companies belonging to the chain subdivided in phases carried out by small vance enterprises. The traceability could represent a problem from the point of view of available data and timely response to inquiry of customers, certification or surveillance bodies. The project faces the traceability of the pork value chain. The decision rises from many considerations: e.g. high number of SMEs involved, many international relations, low value of the single animal, variety of transformation processes ensure that the experience and the results developed will be profitably used also in other food value chains. An analysis of SMEs needs identified clearly that support and guidelines are needed to set-up a traceability system for a specific supply chain or for a single node, supporting SMEs in a consistent and traceable specification of the envisaged traceability chain.

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 13 of 16 249 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Lessons learned The project developed a trace methodology, incorporating 8 steps to help SMEs to implement traceability. It provides a support scheme to companies, for project (very im- which aims to increase the innovation competence of the company staff, ena- portant; what we bling them to design and specify the envisaged traceability chain on their own should consider in responsibility, requiring only minimal external consultancy support. The Trace developing our own Methodology comprehends a workstep structure that covers all key steps and concept, the conclu- follows the logical sequence of task flow required for the design and specifica- sion of the literature tion of a specific chain. The methodology includes the following worksteps: source or the project results) Workstep 1: Design of the Specific Traceability Chain Workstep 2: Rough Description of existing Traceability Chain Workstep 3: Identification of Required Traceability Information per Partner Workstep 4: Information Flow between Interacting Partners Workstep 5: Detailed Specification of the Traceability Information Workstep 6: Determination of DFD per Partner Workstep 7: Flow Charts of Activities per Partner and Activity Description for all Partner Activities per Partner Workstep 8: Specification of ICT support for each Activity per Partner A Trace Methodology Handbook is available to support SMEs in applying the Trace Methodology. In addition, two templates are provided for the documentation of the adoption results: “Traceability Chain Concept Report” and “Part- ner Specific Procedure Specification”. To achieve this, a methodology handbook supporting SMEs in application and all documentation templates for the result presentation shall be made available, guaranteeing that the company succeeds in the execution of the trace methodology. Moreover, a TraceXML Pprotocol was developed to define a minimum set of information to trace each batch of food-feed and it could represent the first step to define a standard to automatically access traceability information of companies and business operators of the food sector. The Trace-XML protocol defines different sets of information on the basis of the user profile and assures automatic collection via the Internet of the information, even if they are archived in different repositories. The P2P approach does not require a unique data repository and at the same time allows fast data retrieval. For example, citizens could access to a limited set of information while authorised officers could access to the complete set of information supported by the TRACE-XML protocol. The citizen could trace the history of a purchased product only collecting information about the type of ingredients and the country each ingredient comes from.

Further informa- Optional tion:

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 14 of 16 250 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

Name of this information item: WEB-2-SME

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what __ Expert experience, specify who:______the information is __ Other, specify: ______based on)

Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please mark the __ Information needs of consumers competence do- __ Information needs of policy mains the informa- __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, tion does focus on; storage, communication etc. of information) multiple marks possible) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. http://www.web2sme.eu/ Literature source, project name and web site, etc.)

Content The objective of the WEB2SME project is to provide an innovative comprehensive SW solution, following the Web 2.0 principles, to extend products of with project rele- automation systems and electrical equipment manufacturer SMEs acting on vance the global market. Such solution will allow:  ICT and service engineering vendor SMEs to provide a new SW system highly competitive at the ICT market  equipment manufacturer SMEs - first users of such SW system to strengthen their competitiveness at the global market by providing new product & customer support services and enabling new business models. User SMEs need to extend their products with different product & customer support services, such as: condition based maintenance, problem solving, equipment reconfiguration services etc., and to be able to cost-effectively provide these services to customers distributed world-wide. An essential aspect of such product extension services (PES) is that they require a means for efficient collaboration of different actors in a supply chain and customers,

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 15 of 16 251 SmartAgriFood Project SmartAgriFood, Input for Deliverable D100.1 May, 31st 2011

within a geographically distributed extended enterprise context. Users need ICT solutions which will allow smooth transition from the current (mostly locally oriented) service provision, to provision of services at global market, partly in ‘virtual world’.

Lessons learned The project develops a set of services that shall facilitate the realization of Web 2.0 solutions. The focus is on the realization of so called core collabora- for project (very im- tive services that are providing an infrastructure for the realization of user portant; what we centred applications. These services are designed in a way to be provided as should consider in a kind of tool box, to be reused for the creation of new solutions. Solution developing our own providers shall be enabled to focus on their core business, not reinventing the concept, the conclu- enablers for Future Internet related solutions. The core collaborative services sion of the literature can be reused and applied as a type of configurable toolset. source or the project results) Nevertheless, one essential problem is the transport of sensitive data from the SME to the customer and vice versa, which requires especially the consideration of the following two aspects, protect the data against “man in the middle”-attacks and ensure that the receiver can identify him/herself. There- fore, the project is also elaborating an approach for document management and search. Moreover, the service composition is guided in a way to empower specifically SMEs to realise advanced solution, also being aware about the trade-off with respect to the different qualities of services (e.g. regarding la- tency and reliability of the internet connection). Further informa- Optional tion:

SmartAgriFood_Deliverable-D100.1-ATB-Input Page 16 of 16 252 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Nikola Vucic e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: HWDU

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components _X_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source EU FP7 SOCRATES Project, www. fp7‐socrates.org (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project The self‐organization of networks is currently considered as one of the relevance hot topics in communications systems. FP7 SOCRATES project developed methods for self‐configuration, self‐optimization, and self‐

healing of wireless networks. The concrete areas of particular interest were power control, antenna parameters, neighbour cell lists, handover, scheduling, and admission control.

While the SOCRATES algorithms were developed for future cellular networks based on Long Term Evolution (LTE) radio interface, the principles of self‐organization are considered to be much more general. The developed methodology is applicable with some modifications in wireless sensor networks, which will be of primary interest for the Smart Farming use case in the SmartAgriFood project, when gathering the data needed for monitoring, control and treatment of animals and plants. Namely, the decentralized wireless sensor networks will most

253 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

likely be used in Smart Farming, in order to increase reliability of the data gathering system. In such decentralized scenarios, the ability of the network consisting of sensor nodes to configure, optimize, and heal by itself, is a necessary requirement.

Further, some elements of self‐organization in telecommunications management, such as the detection of problems/failures and the suggestion of the corresponding countermeasures might find applications for intelligent cargo concepts in agri‐logistics (WP300 in the SmartAgriFood Project).

Lessons learned for A number of methods for designing self‐organizing systems, including project (very important; the contribution from the SOCRATES project, already exist. Some of what we should consider them apply quite sophisticated paradigms from computational in developing our own intelligence, such as fuzzy logic, neural networks, probabilistic concept, the conclusion techniques, swarm intelligence, etc. However, from the outcomes of the of the literature source previous research (including the SOCRATES project), it can be concluded or the project results) that most of the approaches focus only on the countermeasures for optimizing the systems, while the exact nature of the problems to be solved in the networks remains somewhat less understood. The analysis of the problem background, however, will be of crucial importance in the agriculture sector. The challenge in the SmartAgriFood project would also be in selecting the most promising solutions not only in terms of performance but cost effectiveness as well, in a rather specific scenario at hand. Among the solutions, the fuzzy logic approach might be of particular importance for the SmartAgriFood project. It can present a basis for an expert system, with several features: 1. Potential problems in communication with the deployed sensors can be detected and the corresponding automated or manual technical countermeasures can be suggested (use case: Smart Farming). 2. Based on the information gathered by the sensors, valuable inputs and suggestions in the domain of agriculture can be generated and send to the farmers (use case: Smart Farming). 3. Problem detection in food transportation and the suggestion of the corresponding countermeasures (use case: Smart Agri‐ Logistics).

Further information: Optional

254 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Sustainability Information Services for Agri-Food Supply Networks – Closing Gaps in Information Infrastructures

Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background _x_ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the _x_ Expert experience, specify who: __82 expert interviews__ information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the _x_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the _x_ Information needs of consumers information does focus ___ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) ___ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) ___ Process organization (production, distribution processes) ___ IT Technology components ___ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector _x_ Agriculture, specify product: _feed/pigs______x_ Food, specify product: _pork______

Source FP6 integrated project Q-PORKCHAINS http://www.q-porkchains.org/ (where to find; e.g. Dissertation http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2011/2574/2574.pdf Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project Consumers in their role as final customers, and as a consequence also relevance enterprises within agri-food supply networks, show increasing interest in the characteristics of food, and in turn, on the availability of related

information and guarantees. New solutions for determination and communication of sustainability are needed for the agri-food sector, covering single aspects of sustainability as well as sustainability in a broader sense, including social, economic and environmental issues. The doctoral thesis introduces a structured approach for developing sustainability information services for agri-food supply networks and presents a framework that integrates these services into existing network-wide production and decision processes. The approach is presented using the example of European pork production and the

255 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, Responsible: CentMa

three selected information domains food safety (representing social sustainability), quality (representing economic sustainability) and global warming potential (representing environmental sustainability). Resulting information reference models give an aggregated overview on information availability and exchange in European pork supply networks, additional information demands of possible service users and deficiencies in the existing information infrastructures. Integrated service solutions which are based on the identified information sources, demands and deficiencies are introduced to exemplify the approach.

Lessons learned for Problems in collaboration and implementation of an information service project (very important; are mainly related to the transparency level of an enterprise or supply what we should consider network. The most pressing issues are related to enterprises’ different in developing our own levels of “E-readiness” (enterprises’ ability to adopt new technologies) concept, the conclusion and their lack of willingness to share information. of the literature source or the project results)

Further information:

256 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Food Supply Chain ‐ Transport Security Certification

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. TAPA FSR Certification (Transported Asset Protection Association – Freight Security Literature Requirements) by SGS: source, http://www.sgs.com/tapa_fsr?serviceId=10283&lobId=5554 project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance Demonstrate your capability to handle safely your customers' high value and high technological products with SGS, the world’s leading TAPA certifying body.

The last two decades have seen the birth and the coming of age of the high tech industry: nowadays there isn’t a product sold that doesn’t include at least one high technology component. The globalization of world markets and the tremendous growth of international trade ‐‐ and associated high technological products – have highlighted the need to specifically protect this category of products, as well as other high value products, as they move through the supply chain (because of their very high value and the noticeable interest of international

257 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

crime groups).

The Transported Asset Protection Association (TAPA) TAPA is an association of security professionals and related business partners from high technology companies, organized with the purpose of addressing the security threats that are common to the technology industry. Their Freight Security Requirements (FSR) address the nature by which high‐tech products and materials are handled, warehoused and transported as they move throughout the world. They specify the minimum acceptable security standards of such assets when they are traveling throughout the supply chain and the methods to be used in maintaining those standards. In addition, the FSR outlines the processes and specifications for suppliers to attain TAPA certification for their facilities and transit operations.

Trucking Security Requirements (TSR) These requirements have been established to ensure the safe and secure transportation of any TAPA member’s assets throughout the world and may used in conjunction with the FSR. The TST specify the minimum acceptable standards for security throughout the supply chain utilizing trucking and associated operations and the methods to be used in maintaining those standards. The TSR outline the process and specification for suppliers to achieve compliance for their trucking operations. SGS can audit the organization’s performance again the requirement of the TSR.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very As a supply chain management actor and provider, certifying your warehousing important; facilities and transit operations against TAPA FSR requirements will bring the following what we benefits: should consider in  Increase the security of your warehousing and handling operations. developing  Increase your security rating for the handling of high value/high risk products. our own concept, the  Demonstrate your concern and capability to service your customers' security conclusion expectations. of the literature  Open your organization to TAPA members supply chain management business source or and other high value products supply chain handling businesses. the project results)  Help you build a management system that is up‐to‐date with the very latest technological and safety requirements.  Reduce your insurance liability exposure.

 Support your communication strategy, reinforcing the core values of your company and demonstrating your employees' ongoing commitment to security.

SGS is one of three certifying bodies accredited to certify companies against TAPA FSR certification requirements worldwide. Our unique and recognized expertise in asset protection, inspection, verification and certification is combined with our extensive overage of land, air and maritime freight / warehousing locations.

Our team of qualified lead auditors will relay this experience to deliver the most meaningful and professional certification audits, and assist you in meeting your high

258 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

technological asset protection objectives where possible.

Further information:

259 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark __ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information _X_ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Technological Watch System in Agri‐food sector

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. UNE 166006 Standard: Technology Watch System Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance Concept

The monitoring technology is a key tool in the context of R&D management systems, as it constitutes a first step to get useful ideas for new projects, R&D processes and systems, which finally concluded developing a new product, service or process for the organization.

Systematically, the Technology Watch detects, analyzes, disseminates, communicates and uses the technical data used by the company, being alert on the various technological and scientific innovations capable of generating opportunities or threats for it. Compatibility with other

260 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

management systems. This standard is aligned with other standards management (UNE‐EN ISO 9001:2000, UNE‐EN ISO 14001:2004 and UNE 166002:2006) with the aim of increasing compatibility with such standards for the benefit of users.

Purpose and Scope

Allows formalization and structuring of listening process and observation of the environment to allow support the decision‐making at all levels of the company. In this way, contributes to form the basis for defining the strategic position to be taken by the organization, its objectives in R&D and the appropriate organizational structure, permitting in particular:

Perform a systematic observation and search for signs of change aimed at capturing information, selection, analysis, dissemination and communication to make it knowledge. Alert on scientific and technical innovations that may create opportunities or threats. Investigate the findings made in the development of new products, services and processes. Find technological solutions to organizational problems. The scope of this standard applies to all organizations, regardless of their size or nature and activity, establish a management system for R & D projects carried out R & D This rule can be used as purchase specification in the contracting of Vigilance Technology services to third parties.

Management system requirements of technological surveillance. General Requirements

The organization have to:

Identify priority areas and objectives of Technological Watch system performance. Ensure availability of resources and information necessary to allow operation and monitoring of the process. Tracking, measurement, and analysis of the process. Carry out the necessary actions to achieve planned results and continuous process improvement.

If the organization deems appropriate the external contracting of the process or par of It, it must has a control of the process employed, clearly identifying it within the Technological Watch system.

Conducting surveillance technology. Characterization of the Technological Watch processes

These processes may have two possible working approaches and complementary:

‐ The search and investigation of the unknown. ‐ The search and systematic monitoring of developments in areas bounded.

They also include observation, scientific and technical data and market collection, analysis and disseminating it and making decisions based on these data to exploit opportunities or avoid threats related to the technological positioning of the organization.

Process of identifying needs, sources and means of access to information:

‐ Identifying information needs. ‐ Identification of internal and external sources of information. ‐ Means of access to sources.

261 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Search process, processing and validation of information.

The Technological Watch system should include a process that refers to the search and processing of information, establishing a management system to dispose of these data as needed by the organization. In turn, the company must have a system for disseminating this information within the entity. Enhancement process information.

Once validated the information obtained and in view of decision making, an analysis according to criteria established by the organization has to be done.

Features of the information that have to do with: ‐ Proactive nature. ‐ Risk reduction. ‐ Progress required. ‐ Innovation. ‐ Cooperation. ‐ Adaptation to the business strategy. Will have special consideration.

The following is a summary diagram of information flows, processes and outcomes involved in the Technological Watch.

Technological Watch results.

The main result of the Technological Watch will be the knowledge acquired by the company to enable it to anticipate the changes with minimal risk. Knowledge generated is usually intangible and therefore difficult to quantify initial.

262 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; The rapid current evolution of technology renders access and management of information what we absolutely necessary, not only for the development of companies but for their survival. should Only a systematic process providing relevant information at the right moment of decision‐ consider in making will enable companies to become aware of the menaces and the opportunities derived developing from the changes produced. our own concept, the In this context, Technological Watch has, as its aim, the continued acquisition and the conclusion systematic analysis of strategic information in the field of technology and its trends for of the literature corporate decision‐making. source or The concept of Technological Watch is included in the broader area of Economic Intelligence or the project results) Competitive Intelligence, which develops Watch in all corporate areas: technological, commercial, legal, financial, strategic…

In theory Watch activities are considered to be more passive and informative, whereas Competitive Intelligence activities are more active and must contribute directly to the strategic decision‐making of companies. However, it is difficult to imagine Watch activities not influencing political and strategic decisions in a company and therefore Watch activities and Competitive Intelligence activities are profoundly linked.

An innovative company with a certain systematic way of planning its strategy ‐industrial or not‐ must be aware of all those changes which may sooner or later affect its business, from current and potential competitors to alternative products. The way of watching this should therefore adapt to the resources of the company and of the sector in which it operates.

Far from being a tool only for the largest companies, Technological Watch is becoming more and more accessible to the innovative small and medium‐sized company. An organized observation practice of the environment of a company and an adequate treatment of the information gathered is enough to offer visible results for any company. Depending on the resources, a company may outsource, to a greater or lesser extent, different aspects of surveillance or watch. The progress of telecommunications, with the rapid spread of knowledge and news all over the world, and the progress of software tools for the acquisition of information, is brining organized watch practices to innovative and ambitious companies, regardless their size. On the other hand, the pressure of globalization forces companies to know more about the international context, participating in the framework of needs of multinational companies.

Anticipation

To detect changes: new Technologies, products, markets, competitors, ...

Reduction of Risks

To detect risks: patents, products, regulations, alliances...

Progress

263 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

To detect differences: in our products, our client's needs or between our capacity and that of our competitors.

Innovation

To detect ideas and new solutions, helping to make decisions regarding R&D projects.

Cooperation

To identify adequate partners for R&D projects, saving investment allocations.

Future

It will be interesting to create an international web platform of technological watch to provide analysis of strategic information in the field of technology in order to help companies in his decision‐making and enhance his competitiveness.

Further Optional information:

264 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Product Quality Specifications that can be used in the logistics process to keep track of quality parameters of products being shipped Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Jack Verhoosel e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: TNO

Backgroun __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) d __ Expert experience, specify who: ______(please _X_ Other, specify: Product quality specifications mark what the informatio n is based on) Focus __ Information needs of Businesses (please __ Information needs of consumers mark the __ Information needs of policy competenc _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, e domains storage, communication etc. of information) the __ Information organization for farm cooperation informatio _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or n does between enterprises and consumers) focus on; __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, multiple management, institutions involved, etc.) marks __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) possible) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______X_ Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to www.ecas.nl/Certificates/ProductCertification/GLOBALGAPFruitVegetables/tabid/275/l find; e.g. anguage/en‐US/Default.aspx Literature www.ecas.nl/Certificates/ProductCertification/tabid/267/language/en‐US/Default.aspx source, www.floraholland.com/en/Supplying/International/Pages/Qualityassurance.aspx project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): In The Netherlands, a basis for product quality with specifications for flowers/plants is already available in the form of MPS‐Florimark project (www.my-mps.com), which originally focussed on the environmental load during relevance production, but also contains aspects of social responsibility, GLOBALGAP, quality and

so on. In addition, the auction FloraHolland and traders organisation use product specifications to which products traded via the auction have to adhere. Recently MPS,

265 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

AgriQ and Groeinet are launching a new certification scheme for the fruit and vegetables sector that includes requirements in the area of sustainability, reliability, hygiene and transparency. In Israel and Denmark, the MPS standards are also commonly used, because a major part of the flowers are exported to auctions in the Netherlands. However, a common standard for quality and documentation does not exist.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): The product quality specifications mentioned are not yet learned for complete and serve as documentation for a practice, but do not assist the producers to project improve the quality but focus on resource use and management practices. In order to (very also include most of the steps that products make in the chain, we should incorporate important; what we input from current solutions to measure product quality in greenhouses, at the auction, should during transport and in wholesale/retail organizations. Thereby, we have to come up consider in with new parameters or find new usage for the information that is already available. developing For instance: our own concept,  Maintaining records of quality of products (e.g. ornamentals) to be able to the document quality (shelf life) also in comparison to competitors and use this as conclusion documentation towards wholesale organisations. Besides that, the grower would of the like to get information to be able to locate problematic situations causing a loss of literature shelf life. source or the project  The development of a model for “supplier quality” that will be continuously results) updated. It can include parameters such as: grade for information transparency, compliance with standards, quality of the suppliers’ producers, uniformity of the packed product (is it one source of repacked from various sources) and life expectancy of the product.

Further The activities in the lessons learned should become part of the use cases in WP3 informatio n:

266 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Chain Information Systems that can be used in the logistics process to maintain and provide product quality information through the entire chain from grower to retailer Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Jack Verhoosel e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: TNO

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) _X_ Other, specify: Quality tracking service on flowers

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: flowers __ Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. www.flowerwatch.com/wwwUK/kwaliteit.asp Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): FlowerWatch is an international service relevance provider that can audit chains resulting in a continuous process of quality improvement within the chain. FlowerWatch ensures that

growers accept their responsibilities in the fields of logistics and management. Advice and useful digital reporting tools ensure that the grower makes the proper demands on personnel and logistics experts. FlowerWatch ensures that these growers are certifiably the best when it comes to supplying flowers and plants to the start of the chain. The reporting tools can be used internationally and are made available via the Internet. Visualisation is an important feature in this process. For example, measured values are converted into clear graphics and handy codes. This is supported with photographs or moving images in the form of vase life films. FlowerWatch fulfils the role of a director within the

267 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

trade in the rapid buying and selling of flowers and plants. FlowerWatch makes the chain transparent and allows an importer/trader to concentrate on continuity in trade and quality. Retailers have a responsibility when it comes to fresh products. FlowerWatch cool chain management enables to identify an unexpectedly poor consignment of flowers and/or plants. Together with the retailer FlowerWatch formulates the standard to which the end product must conform. FlowerWatch will then help you to meet this standard in practice. In addition FlowerWatch offers the option off using a vase life test for random quality testing. A film is used to record the change in quality accurately. Cool chain staff or data loggers register fluctuations in temperature during transport throughout the chain. This is submitted in email reports and includes an interpretation of quality loss. A vase life of flowers is tested in an area with temperature and lighting control. Researchers use cameras to register the vase life of the flowers and plants. Reporting involves written notes and moving images.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider FlowerWatch is one of the first providers of information systems/ in developing our own services around product quality information in the chain from grower concept, the conclusion via trader to retailer. It looks like these services are mainly focussed on of the literature source pictural and moving images. This makes it only partly a real‐time quality or the project results) monitoring system. What needs to be done is that existing product

quality specifications are extended to include internal quality parameters. These extended quality specs need to be incorporated in systems like the FlowerWatch such that product quality is monitored and made available through the entire chain.

Further information: In WP3 we should start with a good view of the available information systems and services around keeping track of the quality and try to extend them. A more detailed state‐of‐the‐art study in this area would needs to be done in the project.

268 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Angela Schillings-Schmitz e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: GS1 Germany

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) _ Other: Standard Focus (please mark the _x_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _x_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: meat and meat products (Processing plant RASTING of the German Retailer EDEKA)

Source Specify: Best practice study document of GS1 http://www.gs1.org/traceability/case-studies Content with project The “Rasting Westfleisch Traceability Implementation Case Study” relevance describes the use of GS1 Standards for a secure and efficient traceability system throughout the supply chain from the living animal up to the PoS (from animal to plait) Lessons learned for - Identifying the slaughtered and quartered animal and each piece of project (very important; meat with GS1-128 label witgh all information in human readable what we should consider form and additionally a barcode containing information about bach in developing our own number, wordwide unique Article Number (Global Trade Item concept, the conclusion Number of the product (GTIN), containing information about of the literature source company and article) and a company internal information. On each or the project results) stage of cutting, processing and packagign a new set of labels ist been created. This ensures, that before dispatch the label on the final product contains all details of the animal from inception. - For the identification of pallets Rasting uses the Serial Shipping Container Code (SSCC) as wordwide unique identification key for each shipment. All SSCCs are stored into the company´s database. This ensures Rasting to know what each customer receives, traceable back to the carcass. Providing this traceability service to their customer

269 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

(stores) lifts the burden off of their retailer. - Both companies experienced their first recall situation in 1999 due to the Belgian dioxin crisis. Germany’s largest meat producer is able to meet the EU regulation, demanding traceability within a 4-hour time frame. Should a customer request product information today, Rasting is able to provide an answer within a matter of minutes. - To ensure definite identification and traceability of meat products, Westfleisch uses a multi-levelled batchsystem, which includes information on the quality and origin of each individual animal. Throughout thevarious production areas, each GS1-128 label is scanned and recorded. Finished products are assigned to each customer order, enabling Westfleisch the ability to recall within minutes.

Benefits In order to be able to serve the consumer, Westfleisch realised that it needed to provide an efficient tracking and tracing system. Implementing the GS1 System has enabled Westfleisch to efficiently keep track of internal and external circulation of meat products. Rasting realizes that in order to meet their customer’s demands, they must be able to track and trace each product with speed and efficiency. Through implementation of the GS1 System, Rasting is able to efficiently order-pick in its two plants. Without GS1 standards, it would be impossible for the company to handle the traceability of an assortment of more than 1,000 products by delivering to over 1,000 customers each day. It would also require the hiring of additional people to complete the order-picking process in the very short 12 hour time period between order and delivery to the customer. Further information: See attached file

270 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark __ Expert experience, specify who: ______what the __ Other, specify: Internet information is based on) Focus _X_ Information needs of Businesses (please mark _X_ Information needs of consumers the __ Information needs of policy competence _X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, domains the storage, communication etc. of information) information __ Information organization for farm cooperation does focus __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or on; multiple between enterprises and consumers) marks _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, possible) management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector Food safety

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Characteristics of traceability Systems Literature http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/traceabilityinthefoodchain.pdf source, project name and web site, etc.) Content Specify (at least 0,5 pages): with project relevance Characteristics of traceability systems The basic characteristics of traceability systems, i.e. identification, information and the links between, are common in all systems independent of the type of product, production and control system that are served. In practice, traceability systems are record keeping procedures that show the path of a particular product or ingredient from supplier(s) into the business, through all the intermediate steps which process and combine ingredients into new products and through the supply chain to consumers. The traceability of products is based on the ability to identify them uniquely at any point in the supply chain. The manufacturer or importer determines the size of a batch, which is identified

271 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

uniquely. Throughout the food chain, new identities are constantly created as ingredients are combined in recipes, goods are bulked up for delivery, and/or large batches split to a number of destinations. Traceability requires both that the batch can be identified and that this identification gives a link to the product history.

Both products and processes may form key components (known technically as core entities) in a traceability system with information stored in relation to each (Figure 2). In the simplest systems, the only information carried is that showing the linked path along which products can be identified through the chain of manufacture, distribution and retail (i.e. information on the identity of the components, where they have been and when). Additional information may be carried e.g. information enabling processing efficiencies to be calculated for manufacturing systems, information concerning ingredient quality or origin. The amount and type of information can be extended as required by the system, and it may be carried for only part of, or throughout the whole, food chain.

Identification The basis of all supply chain technology is the ability to identify the things that move: pallets, packages, and units of product. The simplest type of identification is a label with a name or number written on it. However, machine readable labels are being rapidly developed by the industry so that goods can be scanned in and out of suppliers, warehouses, and customers in order to: ∙ Speed up handling and reduce errors introduced through paper records or manual data entry ∙ Track movements and improve logistics ∙ Reconcile orders and shipments without excessive paperwork and/or manual data entry into computer systems ∙ Set up electronic ordering and payment systems which reduce errors and increase efficiency

272 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Automatic identification and data capture technologies (AIDC) have been developing rapidly and are widely applied in all industries. In its simplest form the identification may be a numeric or alphanumeric string in read‐only format which gives access to data stored elsewhere (a licence‐plate). However, the amount of information that can be carried within the identification system has been expanding rapidly; many optical systems can now carry more than 2000 characters of information, while magnetic and electronic identification systems can store up to 64K of information (equivalent to a moderately complex spreadsheet).

Optical systems Bar codes are optical, machine‐readable systems using a simple coding system with different thicknesses of bars and spaces. Scanners read bar codes by using red light to recognise the contrast between the bars and spaces of the symbol. The size and print quality of the code is critical to ensure that it is readable; the light margins around bar codes are also vital so that the scanner can establish the background reflectance and hence identify the bar code itself. Standard identification systems for goods and bar coding standards have been introduced across the EU and are now harmonised across the world. The EAN.UCC system currently defines six standard numbering structures: global trade identification numbers, serial shipping container codes, global location numbers, global returnable asset identifiers, global individual asset identifier and global service relation numbers. These numbers contain no information about the item or entity but provide a key to information stored on a database. EAN/13 The reader converts the four different thicknesses of bar and space into a 13 digit code that a computer looks up against a database. The EAN.UCC global identification numbers usually used for this code are unique and unambiguous, and identify the product. Such bar codes are used for most point of sale applications and are linked to a database containing information relating to price. UCC/EAN‐128 This is similar to the EAN‐13 symbol in that it has four different thicknesses of bar and space. However, EAN‐128 bar codes are extended and can represent the identification number and extra information about the item in one single bar code by concatenation, using application identifiers defined by agreed standards. The most common extra information carried includes combinations of the identification numbers of trade units, use by and best before dates, lot and batch numbers and the serial numbers for transport units. These symbols cannot be scanned at point of sale and are widely used in logistics management applications. Portable data files (PDF) These can carry a lot more information than simple bar codes and may be used where access to a remote database is not possible. The PDF file is like a number of ‘cut‐ down’ bar codes stacked on top of one another. Matrix codes use a pattern of filled and unfilled spaces to represent binary data, so that the impression is of a square filled with a pattern of dots. The PDF417 standard can encode more than a kilobyte of data (roughly the equivalent of an A4 page of text) in machine‐readable code the size of a postage stamp. Print quality is even more important for these codes than linear bar codes and due to their complexity they are usually read using image capture techniques, in which the complete symbol image is captured, analysed by image processing and decoded by software within the scanner.

Radio Frequency Identification systems Radio frequency identification (RFID) covers a range of data carrying technologies, for which transfer of data from the identifier to the reader is achieved by a radio23 frequency link3. RFID operates on 4 principal frequencies 135 kHz, 13.56 MHz, 915 MHz and 2.45 GHz. International standards for the use of RFID systems are being put into place, but are not as developed as those for barcodes. Lack of such standards handicaps the roll out of these identification systems on a large scale. RFID identifiers (transponders) consist of a surface/chip, which can be attached onto or implanted into any surface, to provide encoded information of identity (and possibly also include additional information). A reader is also required, which may also be capable of writing data to the transponders.

273 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Passive systems are activated by a remote energy source. The RFID then transmits its stored information, which can be detected by an appropriate recorder. The read range of these systems is around 1 m dependent on frequency and they have very limited data carrying capacity, so they are most commonly used as simple carriers of ‘licence plate’ identification. Passive systems have a very long life; it is more likely that the recording system will become obsolete than the RFID will reach the end of its life span. Passive RFID systems cost between 25p and 75p depending on their sophistication and can be incorporated into the plastic of multi‐use transport trays, ear tags or labels during manufacture. Passive systems are currently used in logistics management for clothes, airline baggage and white goods. Records of number of trips and contents are maintained with the unit for cylinders in gas supply by BOC and keg life by breweries using such systems. Any group of separate RFID passive systems can be activated by the same energy source and read at the same time (known as anti collision) with up to 1000 separate tags within the field, removing the need for individual scanning of barcodes or reading of other identification numbers. Active systems contain their own energy source. When they are activated by a remote signal, the internal power source then used to broadcast the stored information. They have greater storage capacity than passive systems, up to 2K of 3 Furness, A. (2000). Understanding RFID. A guide to radio‐frequency identification technologies and applications. Vicarage Publications Ltd, Halifax. information (the equivalent of several pages of text) and a greater read range. The expected life span of the energy source is 6‐10 years depending on the number of accesses. Active systems are physically bigger than passive systems and more expensive. They are currently only in use in high‐cost logistics operations e.g. asset tracking, pallet marking of high value goods.

Feature identification systems Feature identification relies on collecting intrinsic data about an item from its natural features or properties, which can be used to provide a unique (or near unique) form of identification. The vascular pattern of the retina is present from birth to death and unique to each animal. An image of this pattern can be simply and rapidly captured using a specially configured digital camera. Iris scans, which are also unique can be captured similarly. The images can be converted to a unique record for each animal, which can be stored on a database and linked to other information in the same way an identification tag is currently used. Such a system may not be more costly than implementing RFID identification for livestock and is permanent and secure. DNA samples can be collected from animals at any point during their life cycle from blood, meat, hair, saliva etc. Storage, purification and analysis steps are different depending on the type of sample collected and the methods used for collection and storage. For cattle the analysis of the DNA (genetic fingerprint) gives an almost unique identification (DNA from identical twins would be the same). Where a database of genetic fingerprints is held, DNA can be used to identify the animal, from which meat originated, even after death. Developments are currently being put in place to facilitate the extraction and purification of DNA from heat‐ treated (cooked) meats. In minced meat samples from a number of animals, DNA analysis allows the individuals present to be resolved. An example of a DNA supported traceability systems is given in paragraphs 113‐116. The costs of DNA analysis are falling all the time and developments of more specific marker systems for livestock traceability based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), if successful, will increase the speed and reduce the cost of analysis further. DNA‐based systems have the potential to work in other livestock sectors and even 25 for plants. However, the resolution of the method in these systems is not so clear, since more multiple births (sheep) and cloning (crops) occurs. Optical signatures can now be coded into plastics during manufacture. These can be read using a fluorescent reader. A reading taken anywhere on the bag will give the same unique identification reading. Chemical signatures can also be used in a similar way and electronic

274 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

noses have been developed which may allow volatile signatures to be used. For artificial materials including packaging this may give the ame unique traceability as DNA. However, this technology is still in relatively early stages of development and is very high cost at present.

Lessons Specify (at least 0,5 pages): learned for project (very important; Executive summary what we ∙ The Food Standards Agency needs an overview of traceability in order to come to a view should with regard to the role of traceability systems both in connection with food safety and consider in also to protect other interests of consumers in relation to food. developing our own ∙ The EU General Food Law Regulation defines traceability as “the ability to trace and concept, the follow a food, feed, food‐producing animal or substance … through all stages of conclusion production, processing and distribution”. of the literature Consumer interest source or the project ∙ Consumers gain mostly hidden benefits from traceability i.e. more effective results) achievement of food safety and an increased effectiveness of recall in emergencies.

∙ Traceability also has a role to play in promotion of informed consumer choice because it offers the potential to verify label information on product and ingredient history.

Legal requirements

∙ There are some requirements in legislation for traceability. However, the most complete mandatory traceability system enables beef on sale within the EU to be traced back to the county of birth.

∙ However, the EU General Food Law Regulation contains requirements for traceability in the food chain. The implications of the implementation and enforcement of this proposed legislation in all sectors of the food chain were a key motivation for this study.

Characteristics of traceability systems

∙ The basic characteristics of traceability systems are:

‐ identification of units/batches of all ingredients and products,

‐ information on when and where they are moved or transformed

‐ a system linking these data.

∙ In practice, traceability systems are record keeping procedures that show the path of a particular unit or batch of product or ingredient from supplier(s), through all the intermediate steps which process and combine ingredients into new products and through the supply chain to customers and perhaps ultimately to consumers.

∙ Simple hand‐written or printed labels are being rapidly replaced or supplemented by machine‐readable identification, e.g. bar codes and radio frequency tags. The amount of information that can be carried by identification systems has also been increasing rapidly; many systems can now carry > 2000 characters of information. This has implications for enhancing the operation of traceability systems.

∙ Traceability systems are critically reliant on the recording of information. How much

275 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

information is carried in a traceability system varies and is dependent on the nature of the product, on farm and manufacturing practice, customer specifications and requirements in law.

∙ Robust mechanisms are needed to facilitate the collection and authentication of any information, to enable it to be updated and shared through the chain. In some cases, analytical tests may be able to support and check traceability systems.

Assessment of current systems

∙ There is a range of systems for traceability in place from paper‐based to IT enabled. However, the increased efficiency, effectiveness and security of IT enabled systems are recognised and they are being slowly rolled out throughout the food chain.

∙ Partly as a result of legislation in this area, systems to deliver traceability in the livestock sector, particularly beef, are relatively advanced. This has also led to the development of protocols for electronic identification and data transfer, which may apply to all livestock sectors in the medium term.

∙ The diversity of food processing operations means that the way in which traceability records are kept by any business is practically unique and businesses make individual and widely varying decisions with regard to the size of batches that are produced, and hence the size of any recall.

∙ Throughout the food supply chains of the major retailers, traceability systems have bee put in place, which are regularly independently audited by challenge to the system and judged according to goal‐based requirements for speed and effectiveness of recall.

∙ However in other sectors, e.g. Foodservice, few initiatives have been taken to develop and implement robust traceability systems, or in some cases any batch traceability at all.

∙ Except in a few instances (e.g. beef and some retailer chains), frameworks are not in place linking entire food chains. Traceability is delivered through a sequential interrogation of customer‐supplier links up or down the chain. There is an EU project in place (FoodTracE), which is seeking to develop a simple framework to achieve connectivity between the steps of the food chain.

∙ The cost of implementation of traceability systems is likely to vary enormously between business and sectors depending on the type of technology adopted, the amount of information required to be stored and the complexity of the food chain.

∙ In the light of this report and subsequent discussion, the Agency will assess its priorities and objectives for traceability in the food chain, working with stakeholders where appropriate.

Further information:

276 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Traceability Provider of this information (please specify): Name: András Sebők e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CBHU

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the X Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the X Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus X_ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks X_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) X_ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______X_ Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. http://www.campden.hu/eng/szolgaltatasok.php Literature source, project Campden Magyarország Nonprofit Kft. name and web site, etc.)

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance Our institute has long experience in the areas of technology‐transfer, product development and new product introductions to the market, and traceability. Based on the long practical experience in traceability projects and traceability audits and verifications (IFS, BRC, McDonald’s, HACCP, ISO 9000) we have developed a procedure for developing and checking traceability systems and for the documentation of the traceability. Based on that the traceability inspection service is an independent evaluation of traceability and product identity systems for primary agricultural raw materials and associated prepared products. The evaluation can be for an individual operation or complete supply chain. An evaluation programme was developed for assessing and prioritising information flow between suppliers and the different steps of the production processes of food businesses and customer and proposal for

277 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

eliminating information that increases complexity and costs and potential for traceability system problems. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; The traceability system verification service that is rapid to implement what we should consider and provides for legislative and customer requirements. It is suitable for in developing our own all companies who need to establish the farm‐to‐fork product chain of concept, the conclusion ingredients and products. of the literature source The simple paper based system was developed for developing food or the project results) traceability systems and for identification gaps, breakages in the flow of information. This is supported by a set of sample practical templates. These templates for the documentation of the traceability system were developed which help to: • Identify the most important parameters, and record these parameters. • Identify the information flow (who/ what/ how).

For an efficient traceability system the available information has to be prioritised and only priority information has to be made traceable and retrievable. Priority food safety information is, what is necessary to meet legal requirements, food safety parameters and warranty declarations in finished product specifications and customer requirements specifies in retailer’s supplier standard and specifications. Priority information:  CCPs monitoring research  CP‐s controlled by good hygiene practice  Corrective actions

Our experience shows that the best way is to start to collect the information from the customer requirements and go back step‐by‐step to the information to be collected.

It is important that the information requested by the suppliers should match the information to be provided to the customers.

The requirement for traceability is included in the REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002. Further information: Optional

278 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Transparent_Food project Provider of this information (please specify): Name: András Sebők e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CBHU

Background __ Literature X Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the X Information needs of Businesses competence domains the X Information needs of consumers information does focus X Information needs of policy on; multiple marks X Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation X Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______X Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. http://www.transparentfood.eu/ Literature source, project WP6: Best practices and performance name and web site, etc.) Content with project The major part of the best practices of transparency is commonly relevance applicable for all transparency domains and only a small part of them is domain specific. A framework was developed for analysis of best

practices of transparency, which is the basis of formulation of a best practice guide. The objective of the guide is to integrate the knowledge from the different work packages of Transparent_Food, dealing with different aspects and domains of transparency systems, by using a process based approach to describe the successful practices on:

• meeting transparency expectations and needs of the recipients (consumers, businesses and policy makers/authorities); • integrating appropriate and true information into transparency schemes to ensure informed decisions of the recipients; • proving the verity of claims and statements.

279 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Structures of the guide on best practices‐ Transparency concept This concept consists of two main elements, as: • issue of realisation • issue of content. Process of realisation of transparency contains: 1. Information collection 2. Processing of information 3. Communication of information 4. Utilisation of information The content of transparency information contains: 1. Documentation 2. Clarity of information, understandability 3. Nature of information, requirements 4. Verification 5. Segregation of product identity Lessons learned for project (very important; Lessons learned from successful cases of transparency practices can what we should consider improve the transparency of these claims. in developing our own concept, the conclusion One of the results of the project is a “Best practice" inventory, which of the literature source will help to achieve the project goals. or the project results) The experience was that there are typical challenges concerning transparency solution, as:  The concepts of traceability and transparency are often mixed.  Statements/claims are not verified or the information on verification is not accessible.  Certification schemes are rather judged depending on the trust in the certification body, no access to information about the certified company.  Access to transparency information requires active searching, and the information found is easily understandable. Hence the 6th Work Package of Transparent_Food project helps to make the concept of transparency more understandable, provides useful examples for all stakeholders within the food chain, and examples from different transparency domains, and illustrates the difficulties of transparency. Further information: Optional

280 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Transparent_Food, WP 2: Fesability and traceability Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Esther Mietzsch e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: KTBL

Background __ Literature _x_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks _x_ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation _x_ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _x_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______x_ Food, specify product: _sector‐wide______

Source Transparent Food EU‐project: www.transparentfood.eu (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project Work package description relevance Work package 2 of the Transparent_Food project deals with the basic framework layer ‘Infrastructure and Multi‐Dimensional Tracking and Tracing Needs’. It links up (work group) with the various stakeholders in the provision of baseline system solutions, especially solutions that assure tracking and tracing capability and allow its extension with transparency information. This involves system providers, the providers of technical, organizational and communicational standards (GS1, agroXML etc.), and European projects related to tracking and tracing problems. It identifies the potential, pre‐conditions, barriers, and agreement requirements for an open European backbone system that distinguishes different levels of development and could provide the basis for a first (lowest level) transparency network on which all further transparency developments could build. Requirement analysis In an initial requirements analysis, food sector and product characteris‐

281 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

tics that have an influence on design and architecture of the backbone have been analyzed. Stakeholders’ expectations have been collected and existing systems and solutions to be networked have been evalu‐ ated. Statistical data on enterprise size distribution in the food sector in the European Union have been collected and evaluated. While the larger enterprises commonly are small in numbers but contribute a relatively large part to the economic outcome and to the percentage of bound labour force, small enterprises still play a major role in various stages of the food sector. IT systems for food traceability face problems distinctive of the food sector. They mostly result from properties of food and the processes applied, such processing with transformations, risk of deterioration and immaterial properties. A basic information set to enable tracking and tracing requires data on the shipping company, shipping timestamp, a product code and a lot number. A “backpack” of further information is required, that allows for tracking depending upon chain scope, e. g. tracking attributes like “organically produced” or “fair trade”. Feasability study In a feasility study, methods and technologies that can be used to build such a solution have been gathered, analyzed and evaluated. Various organizations provide standards and directions for data and information management in supply chains and in the food and agricultural sector. Both public and governmental bodies (e.g. UN/CEFACT and UNECE on a global level, EFSA on a European level, limited term projects such as EuroFIR, various national governmental bodies) and private associations (e.g. GS1, EPCglobal, OASIS) are involved in this work. There are also a number of organizations providing basic and generic information tech‐ nology standards (e.g. W3C, IETF, ISO JTC1). Protocols providing data exchange mechanisms in the eBusiness, supply chain and food sector include EDIFACT, the newer standard ebXML and EPCIS as a standard for the exchange of data on product movement. Most of the protocols cur‐ rently available are based on the design paradigm of remote procedure calls using the SOAP technology. RESTful web services are already in use by some of the system providers, and the method calls of HTTP upon which they are based are simple to implement and well understood. The most common syntax for data structuring is currently XML, used for example in ebXML, EPCIS or agroXML (in agriculture). An alternative to be considered is JSON. Concerning semantics, two main types of classifi‐ cation systems have been established in the food sector: hierarchical classifications as used by the EFSA, and facetted classification such as LanguaL. The AGROVOC thesaurus by the FAO is nowadays the most comprehensive multilingual thesaurus and vocabulary for agriculture. To identify real‐world objects, they can be marked using RFID, human readable numbers, bar codes or two dimensional barcodes like the DataMatrix code. The information stored in the tag most commonly is the Electronic Product Code (EPC), the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN) or a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). Dereferencing mecha‐ nisms allow these identifiers to be used as addresses to execute service calls to request further information upon certain objects. 2D‐Codes also allow for the encoding of further information such as expiration date, serial number etc. Blue print proposal The blueprint proposal is currently in a draft stage. It narrows the broad

282 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

scope of methods and technologies described in the feasibility study down to a set of potentially harmonizing and future‐proof methods and technologies. Based on the good practice case “Transparency along the chicken chain” described by other project partners in the Transparent Food project, the backbone usage and implementation is described and analysed and a proposal for further activities is provided. Lessons learned for Blue print proposal project (very important; The proposal for a general infrastructure for tracking and tracing in the what we should consider food sector suggests a data model which separates basic tracking and in developing our own tracing data from backpack data, which is necessary for tracking and concept, the conclusion tracing with regard to certain properties of the final product. At the core of the literature source is the Traceable Reference Unit (TRU) and its identifier being connected or the project results) to information providing basic tracking and tracing, which is well‐ defined and well‐structured. The backpack also applies to a TRU, but has to be much more flexible, as it has to be able to describe processes and parameters depending upon various products, chains, matters of interest of stakeholders etc. The backpack is thus facing semantic issues in clarifying the meaning of data exchanged. The proposed way to tackle the problem is to reuse existing identification standards and vocabularies such as GS1, Agrovoc, LanguaL with an additional linking layer based upon semantic web and linked open data technologies. On the service side to be able to scale to the necessary level of numbers of stakeholders, a RESTful architecture with distributed servers where each stakeholder is responsible for his own data and which uses HTTP as a protocol is proposed. Syntax can be negotiated automatically among a set of options. Based on information from system providers, a preference can be given to text‐based formats, especially XML and in the future also JSON. HTML with RDFa is proposed if a unification of interfaces intended for machines and human consumption is intended. For product identification in the food sector, an important aspects is to provide mechanisms that are feasible and applicable to SMEs as well. Matrix‐ and barcodes are therefore preferred at the moment, as they can be read using everyday technology without relying on specialized hardware like it is e. g. the case with RFID. Research needs and priorities  Formalized semantics of food and intermediate products terms and data items, interoperability of coding systems  Feasible identification of holdings, production sites and units and definition of traceability reference units in primary produc‐ tion  User roles and access management in distributed tracking and tracing systems  Dealing with unreliability of network infrastructure in and providing feasible automation of tracking and tracing for small scale enterprises Further information: Optional

283 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Truefood- project Provider of this information (please specify): Name: András Sebők e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CBHU

Background __ Literature X Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the X_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the X_ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation X Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Agriculture, specify product: ______X Food, specify product: ______

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Work Package 5 – Improved marketing and food supply chain Literature source, project organisation methods for traditional food products name and web site, etc.) http://www.truefood.eu/ Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The overall aim of the project was to improve marketing and supply chain structures for the project. The specific objectives were: • to identify and quantify the determinants of bottlenecks and success factors that SME’s active in the sector of traditional foods are confronted with; • to compare the functioning of six traditional food supply chains (meat, dairy, vegetables, beverages) within and across member states; and also to compare food producers’ perspective on bottlenecks and on success factors with that of consumers; • to develop a benchmark instrument relative to marketing effectiveness enabling traditional food companies to evaluate their current position; • to develop indicators to determine the overall chain performance;

284 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

• to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of possible approaches to improve marketing capabilities; • to analyse the potential impact of innovative distribution systems for traditional foods. The objective was in work package 5 to develop innovative distribution strategies for traditional food producers. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider In the task of Benchmark for evaluating marketing management in developing our own capabilities of traditional food producers main finding was an on-line concept, the conclusion benchmark tool for self evaluation of marketing management of the literature source capabilities (MMC) is available for trial http://users.unimi.it/truefood. or the project results) In the task of Chain goals, chain performance and chain strategies main findings were in-depth interviews with 271 companies belonging to 91 traditional food chains across three European countries. 12 ideas were selected and elaborated to innovative distribution strategies, as all-in-one packaging, fast food chains, regional corner,small-area territorial penetration, network facilities, specialty shops, joint promotion, joint distribution, involvement of consumer, e- commerce B2B&B2C, agro-tourism, and moving outlets. Finding was that the elaborated ideas tested for their feasibility in the traditional food sector with a small group of traditional food producers in 3 countries and the organization of strategy chain approach is taken into account. Further information: Optional

285 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Ubiquitous ID: Standards for Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of Things

Provider of this information: Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background _X_ Literature ___ Project ___ System product (eg market software) ___ Expert experience, specify who: ______Other, specify: ______

Focus ___ Information needs of businesses ___ Information needs of consumers ___ Information needs of policy ___ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation _X_ Chain communication organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) ___ System organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) ___ Process organization (production, distribution processes) ___ IT components _X_ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector ___ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Koshizuka, N. and Sakamura, K. (2010). Ubiquitous ID: Standards for Ubiquitous Computing and the Internet of Things. Pervasive Computing (pp. 98-101)

Content with project In 2003, key players in the field established a nonprofit open forum relevance called the Ubiquitous ID Center (uID Center; www.uidcenter.org). Inter- national standardization related to simple context recognition— namely, recognizing IDs and directory-service-level ID resolution— has already started. In 2008, recommendations specifying service definitions and requirements, and specifying functional architecture, were approved. Future work will focus on standardizing complex contexts using ucR resolution. The uID Center has almost finished consortium- level standardization. So far, more than 500 companies and organizations worldwide have contributed to it, publishing uID standards, industrial open standard specifications for ubiquitous computing systems. The article discusses the principle of ubiquitous computing technology standardization and introduces uID standards currently in development.

286 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Lessons learned for In ubiquitous computing environments, many tiny computers cooper- project ate, adapting their behaviours according to real-world contexts to provide flexible information services. These information services can’t be realized without technology standardization in a broad area.

Further information

287 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Tomás Robles Valladares e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: UPM

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify:

Focus (please mark the competence domains the Service Architecture for rural areas information does focus on; multiple marks possible) Sector TIC and Service Oriented Architectures for rural services

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Collaboration@Rural EU Project Literature source, project D1.1.1: Technical Requirements of C@R Rural Scenarios End‐Users and name and web site, etc.) Metric Related to CSS Components

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The ongoing work presented in this document introduces three major issues. First, the methodological approaches and achievements; second, the definition of the platform architecture; third, the main result of the document: the core services derived from the users’ needs. Regarding the methodology, the main result presented in this document is the description of the different approaches taken during this first year, the corrective procedures and the actions taken in order to conduct their evolution and convergence. The current results in the definition of C@R platform architecture comprise its consensual evolution from the early architectural definition to its current state. This document provides the definition and general overview of its structure, inner workings and capacities, as they are understood after a year of hard working on conceptual settling and technical research. Finally, the platform core services, as depicted from the user driven methodology present in C@R, are presented in its current state. The core technological aspects of the project platform are derived from the user driven approach.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider Service Oriented Architectures are a good base for creating service in developing our own in the rural areas, nevertheless they have to be adapted for concept, the conclusion dealing wiht specific conditions of such areas, such as: the lack of of the literature source broadband telecommunicaitons ifnrastructures and the intensive

288 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa or the project results) use of sensonrs and actuators on the required services. Specific environmental conditions has to be also taken in consideration. It defoined an Architecture for Collaboration services Further information: Optional

289 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Tomás Robles Valladares e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: UPM

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify:

Focus (please mark the competence domains the Service Architectures for Rural Areas information does focus on; multiple marks possible) Sector TIC applied to Rural areas Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Collaboration@Rural EU Project Literature source, project D1.1.2 Architecture Requirements of CCS Components name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The context and purpose of this document is to establish the structure template and common interfaces of CCS components to be developed and integrated into the C@R Arquitecture. CCS components will encapsulate basic resources to be orchestrated in order to create collaborative services frameworks. Moreover, external platforms will be able to cooperate with C@R one as long as they will be integrated by the means of specific Information Management CCS components. By establishing a common structure and interfaces with underlying (resources themselves) and upperlayers (Control Plane or “C@R BUS”) software components. Components design and development will be improved and accelerated.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider Based on the scenario model, this Deliveray defines the in developing our own identification of service components, interfaces between the concept, the conclusion service components and the CORE of the architecture. of the literature source The proposed moddel splits the interface in two subinterfaces: or the project results) control and communication interfaces

Further information: Optional

290 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Tomás Robles Valladares e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: UPM

Background __ Literature _X _ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify:

Focus (please mark the competence domains the Components interfaces for service components of rural services information does focus on; multiple marks possible) Sector TIC and Service oriented Architectures applied to Rural services

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Collaboration@Rural EU Project Literature source, project D1.2.1: Communication CCS Components Internal Architecture and name and web site, etc.) Interfaces Design First Specification Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance This deliverable defines the internal architecture of each of the CCS to be developed, including both functional interfaces (what the CCS does) and control interfaces (how the CCS talks to the BUS). This deliverable is written after a period of intensive work with the different users and stakeholders of the LLs of the project. Firstly, “D1.1.1 Technical Requirements of C@R Rural scenarios end‐ users” presented the list of CCS to be developed at each LL and the functionalities provided by them to each of the use cases. Secondly “D1.1.2 Architecture Requirements of CCS components” described the generic CCS skeleton or template which fulfils the requirements imposed by the C@R architecture defined by the project.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider This document illustrated the communicaiton requirements regarding in developing our own telecommunicaiton infrastructure service components has to dela concept, the conclusion with. of the literature source Annalising technolgies and service and architecture requirements, the or the project results) document proposed several alternatives for hiding the complexity of communications to the service components.

Further information: Optional

291 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Tomás Robles Valladares e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: UPM

Background __ Literature _ X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify:

Focus (please mark the competence domains the Service Oriented Architectures for Rural Services information does focus on; multiple marks possible) Sector TIC and SOA applied to rural areas

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Collaboration@Rural EU project Literature source, project D2.1.3: C@R A N D OSOA DE S IGN name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance The document describes the entire process of developing the C@R OSOA architecture approach. Starting point is the description of the general software design methodology utilized in the C@R project to ensure the quality of developed concepts and software. With this knowledge and the outcomes of the well defined process of general software design methodology the individual living labs are able to go on with the conceptualization of the C@R OSOA architecture. Therefore this document provides the general concepts of the OSOA design. Following the OSOA design principles during development leads to a high quality result that is in line with the C@R architecture concepts. After the general definition of the C@R OSOA concepts the real implementation will take place using web services. To support this development the document provides information of how to implement web services conform to the C@R OSOA approach to keep them in line with the required standards to enable the interoperability with the C@R architecture. More advanced end user applications will use up to date technologies like “semantic web” and “web2.0” to improve the applications behavior and to overcome the specific problems (e.g. infrastructural impediments, low end devices, less computer literacy of end users) we face in rural environments. Possible use cases and implementation possibilities are described in this document to simplify the usage of these advanced technologies. Since the C@R OSOA architecture will be used in a broad community and among different living labs it is absolutely necessary to build the architecture upon well defined standards and to avoid proprietary

292 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

concepts. The most important standards used in the C@R OSOA are described in this document to improve the quality of developed software and thus to ensure the interoperability, maintainability and reusability of the C@R OSOA architecture components. A central piece of the C@R OSOA is the concept of Software Collaboration Tools (SCT). Since they combine the lower level components to provide the functionality to the upper layer via a web service interface this concept will be described in this document to ensure the awareness of the current definition. To realize the concept of SCTs in a C@R OSOA compliant manner it is necessary to be aware of the previously chapters of this document. For the real implementation of the C@R OSOA concepts the document provides information about currently used development tools to simplify the development work. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; Open Service Oriented Architectures using different networks access what we should consider capabilities and combining service components, with sensors and user in developing our own interfaces can provide a flexible mechanism for defining real and concept, the conclusion usable services for rural environments. of the literature source The lack of basic functionalities of the underlying network such as: or the project results) security, service management or ealiability, among others, should be covered by this Architecture

Further information: Optional

293 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Tomás Robles Valladares e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: UPM

Background __ Literature _ X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify:

Focus (please mark the competence domains the Services and services components for rural Living Labs information does focus on; multiple marks possible) Sector Service for Rural Living Labs

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Collaboration@Rural EU Project Literature source, project D2.2.1: Design of a Distributed workspace for rural environments name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance One of the main goals of C@R is to define and create a distributed workspace component for supporting CWE at rural environments. This deliverable identified common services of RLL, which are used for defining the DWS structure creating an OC composed by four Collaboration Frameworks: Mobile GIS, Real Time Collaboration, Unified Calendar and Distributed Business Data. They integrate both exiting tools and newly developed services. Each component is decomposed into several CCS, which may include one userinterface, and synchronization protocols. This deliverable also provided a methodology for integrating the OC as a set of CCSs register to the BUS of the OSOA of C@R. Finally the designed DWS is being implemented and will be validated in several RLL of C@R. Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; Collaborative services, as an example of rural services, share many what we should consider common components (or basic services) and requirements. in developing our own Identification of common services and capabilites is a esential element concept, the conclusion for defining and building an Open Service Oriented Architectue of the literature source specifically tuned for rural services or the project results)

Further information: Optional

294 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Tomás Robles Valladares e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: UPM

Background __ Literature _ X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify:

Focus (please mark the competence domains the Methodologies for users involvement for discovering, prototyping and information does focus testing new technology applications and new methods of generating on; multiple marks and fostering innovation processes in real time possible) Sector Users involvement

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Collaboration@Rural EU project Literature source, project D3.1.3: Living Labs Monitoring, Assessment and Evaluation name and web site, etc.) Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance “Living Labs are proving grounds for discovering, prototyping and testing new technology applications and new methods of generating and fostering innovation processes in real time” (Living Labs concept in C&R). The key role of this document is to monitor, assess and evaluate the Living Lab as instrument for method of innovation. In the preparation phase, the report identifies and evaluates the conditions that are being set in place to let LL work develop into an effective innovation environment. Think of decisions regarding the LL business model, the infrastructure, the partnership agreements, the policy development etc. In this phase, there are few expectations concerning the impacts on innovation. In the later phases, by nature, another focus must be chosen to reflect on the different phases of maturity of the LL.

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; The concept of Rural Living Labs, as one specific instance of Living what we should consider Labs, has being used by C@R project, and evaluated as an successfull in developing our own methology for user and involvemnt in order to identify requiremetns concept, the conclusion and suitable services for each specific scenarios of the project of the literature source or the project results)

Further information: Optional

295 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Yann Cassing & Elena Mansilla e‐mail: [email protected] ; [email protected] Project Partner: SGS

Background __ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: Internet

Focus (please mark the _X_ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the _X_ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) _X_ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) _X_ Process organization (production, distribution processes) __ IT Technology components __ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector __ Food, specify product: Waste Management Standards

Source Specify: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project Waste Management Standard ISO 14001: name and web site, etc.) http://www.usistf.org/download/ISMS_Downloads/ISO14001.pdf

ASTM Standards, Waste Management Standards http://www.astm.org/Standards/waste‐management‐standards.html

Tools: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), Cost‐Benefit Analysis (CBA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), Material Flow Accounting (MFA), Environmental Management System (EMS) http://www.iswa.org/uploads/tx_iswaknowledgebase/1c_‐_1400_‐_P_‐ _Finnveden_Ekvall_‐_Institute_SE.pdf

Content with project Specify (at least 0,5 pages): relevance ISO 14001 Standard

296 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Waste disposal management spans a wide series of activities. From collecting and gathering the waste or rubbish to transporting them to the dumps and landfills, to processing and recycling or disposing the waste materials. In this day and age where being green and environmentally friendly is so highly valued and reported, any business would want to operate with good waste management procedures. Recently, a new executive order by President Obama is yet another sign that the federal government is taking environmental friendliness and sustainability seriously. To adhere to the conditions of Executive Order 13514, every federal organization and agency must submit plans that will decrease greenhouse gas emissions including both direct and indirect emissions. It is said that this meant to be an order for federal organizations to lead by example, and with that mindset, the high standards will probably trickle down to common businesses as well. For most businesses, being accredited with the ISO 14001 standard shows that it is serious about being an environmentally responsible company. The ISO 14000 family of standards is an international standard mainly crafted and developed because of the 1992 Rio Summit on the Environment. Over these years, the ISO 14001 has become the main standard of the ISO 14000 series. It spells out the framework and standards of management in an environmental management system. Environment management refers to a company's ability to reduce and minimize any harm a company's activities could do to the environment. It also requires that a company continuously improve on the effects its processes on the environmental. A qualified third party will be able to assess if an organization meets with the standards and provide proper certification. To adhere to these standards, one way may be to look into better waste disposal recycling. For example, waste that is organic in nature (plant, paper, food) could be recycled into compost for landscaping and agricultural applications. A vaporous waste gas like methane could be transformed into electricity. These are ways to improve the waste disposal management of a business and be a socially responsible corporate citizen.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/4072034

ASTM Standards

ASTM's waste management standards provide the guides, practices, and test methods pertinent to the process of handling residential, commercial, and industrial wastes. This process involves the collection, transport, processing, and recycling or disposal (whichever is applicable) of waste materials for health, environmental, and/or aesthetic purposes. These waste management standards are indispensable to local government authorities, who are responsible for residential and metropolitan wastes, and industrial plants and laboratories, who are responsible for the wastes they generate.

Tools

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) are both procedural tools. EIA is an established tool

297 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

mainly for assessing environmental impacts of projects (e.g. Petts, 1999). In contrast to many of the other tools discussed here, it is generally a site‐specific tool. The locations of the planned project and associated emissions are often known and an EIA is often used to evaluate alternative locations. It is required in different regulations in many countries, e.g. in order to get a permit for a waste treatment plant (Tyskeng, 2006). SEA is a more recent tool intended to be used at an earlier stage in the decision making process, on a more strategic level (e.g. Thérivel and Partidário, 1996). It is intended to be used for policies, plans and programmes. Its use is still limited but different types of guidelines are being developed and there is an EU‐directive (Dir. 2001/42/EC). Since SEA is used on a strategic level, the exact location of different emissions sources may not be known, a feature that may require different assessment methods compared to a more traditional EIA. Since EIA and SEA are procedural tools, different analytical tools may be used as parts of the process. For example, Life Cycle Assessment and Risk Assessment could be used as parts of an SEA (Finnveden et al, 2003). Both EIA and SEA typically include environmental impacts as well as the use of natural resources. It is sometimes suggested to include economic and social aspects as well in a broader sustainability assessment, but this is typically not regarded as general practice. Experiences from SEA for waste management are limited but examples include Brooke et al 2004 and Nilsson et al, 2005.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool to assess the environmental impacts and resources used throughout a product’s life from raw material acquisition through production use and disposal. The term ‘product’ can include not only product systems but also service systems, e.g. waste management systems. An ISO standard has been developed for LCA providing a framework, terminology and some methodological choices (ISO, 1997). An LCA is divided in four phases: Goal and Scope definition, Inventory analysis (which is a compilation of the inputs and the outputs of the system (Rebitzer et al, 2004)), Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and the Interpretation. The LCIA phase in turn is divided into several elements, some which are regarded as optional (Pennington et al, 2004). The first elements of the LCIA (the choice of impact categories and models, classification and characterisation) are based on more or less traditional natural science and aim at describing the contribution from the studied system to a number of environmental impact categories such as resource depletion, human health impacts and ecological consequences. One of the optional elements of LCIA is called weighting and includes a valuation of different impact categories against each other. This may include different types of monetisation methods or Multi‐criteria decision analysis techniques. Life cycle thinking and LCA have become important tools for waste management and policy. This is for example manifested in the recent suggestion for a Thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste from the Commission of the European Communities. LCA has been successfully applied to integrated waste management systems in a number of case studies (e.g. Björklund and Finnveden, 2005, Kirkeby et al, 2006). More or less “standard” LCA methodology can be used when applied to integrated waste management systems (e.g. Clift et al, 2000) although some aspects may come more into focus.

298 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Cost‐Benefit Analysis (CBA) is an analytical tool for assessing the total costs and benefits from a planned project. It is a well‐established tool described in textbooks on environmental economics. In principle, all costs and benefits, including environmental costs, should be included and monetised. This means that both marketed and non‐marketed (i.e. external) goods and services are given a price (Johansson, 1993). In the evaluation the costs are compared to the benefits. Although it is typically applied on projects, it can be used more broadly especially as a valuation method. Many CBAs of waste management have been carried through on the national level in the past decade (see e.g, Ibenholt & Lindhjem (2003), Dijkgraaf & Vollebergh (2004) and Eshet (2005)).

Life Cycle Costing (LCC) can be used to assess the costs of a product or a service from a life‐cycle perspective. It can include different types of costs (e.g. Norris, 2001). It is an analytical tool. It has been used for waste management studies, e.g. by Carlsson Reich (2005). If the LCC includes external costs (i.e. costs borne by society at large for example due to environmental pollution), an LCC can be similar to a CBA.

Material Flow Accounting (MFA) is a family of different methods (Bringenzu et al, 1997). A common feature is the focus on material flows.

Substance Flow Analysis (SFA) is a type of MFA that focuses on a specific substance within a system. Like other MFA methods, SFA focuses on inputs, but in addition it also follows substances within the economic system to trace the outputs. Examples include SFAs of waste management systems (Döberl et al, 2002) and specific treatment methods (Morf et al, 2005).

Environmental Management System (EMS) with Environmental Auditing is mainly a procedural tool (cf. Wrisberg et al, 2002). EMAS (Eco Management and Audit Scheme) and ISO 14001 (International Organization for Standardization)) are two standards for EMS, both including Environmental Auditing (ISO, 1996a and b) EMS and Environmental Auditing is applied on an organisation, e.g. a company or a municipality. Environmental Auditing is a descriptive assessment typically including environmental aspects as well as resource use

Lessons learned for Specify (at least 0,5 pages): project (very important; what we should consider Waste management models can be useful at a number of different in developing our own levels in society. For example, it can be used by companies to support concept, the conclusion strategic decisions, by municipalities for waste management planning, of the literature source and for governments for policy decisions. Experiences have shown that or the project results) waste management models can be useful for learning and for getting different organizations (or parts of one organization) to find a common ground for discussions (Olofsson, 2004). Waste managements systems thinking are getting increasing attention. This is for example evidenced by the suggested thematic strategy on waste by the European Commission (EC, 2005), where LCA and life‐cycle thinking gets a prominent position. The benefit of using LCA in analyzing

299 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

waste management systems is that it provides a comprehensive view of the processes and impacts involved. Waste management is in itself a large and complex system that is difficult to survey. The system grows even more complex as one considers its links to other sectors such as manufacture, energy production, and agriculture. The comprehensive view provided by LCA is important if one strives to avoid system sub optimization, such as reducing the impacts of treating the waste at the expense of increased impacts from transportation. A life‐cycle perspective can also illustrates the benefits of different waste treatment methods such as the production of heat and electricity from incineration or the production of new raw materials that can replace production from virgin materials.

It will be interesting to create a website portal where It will be available all information about certification bodies and certified companies of all the standards related to the agri‐food sector in a way to provide details to the consumers and selection criteria for the suppliers selection. Those Waste Management Standards allows companies to produce less waste by reusing it so it represents an economic way to enhance wich is at the same time beneficial for the environment.

Further information: Optional

300 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Provider of this information (please specify): Name: Nikola Vucic e‐mail: [email protected] Project Partner: HWDU

Background __ Literature _X_ Project __ System product (eg market software) (please mark what the __ Expert experience, specify who: ______information is based on) __ Other, specify: ______

Focus (please mark the __ Information needs of Businesses competence domains the __ Information needs of consumers information does focus __ Information needs of policy on; multiple marks __ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, possible) storage, communication etc. of information) __ Information organization for farm cooperation __ Chain Communication Organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) __ System Organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) __ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT Technology components _X_ Future Internet functionalities __ Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source EU FP7 WATER‐BEE Project, www.water‐bee.eu (where to find; e.g. Literature source, project name and web site, etc.) Content with project The project WATER‐BEE focused on applying wireless sensor networks relevance in intelligent irrigation systems. The results of the project are relevant for the Smart Farming use case of the SmartAgriFood project, where

smart irrigation is under discussion as a candidate for the pilot demonstration.

The goal of the project was to develop a low cost, easy‐to‐use system, which will have a major impact in water and cost saving, as well as in protecting the environment. The sensor nodes measured soil moisture at different depths. This information was sent together with the gathered meteorological data (humidity, temperature, solar radiation, rainfall, wind) from the weather nodes over the gateway to the central unit. The central unit, equipped with dynamic (sensor and weather data) and static tables (soil type, crop information, etc.), performed processing of the data and decided on the next irrigation events. The decision was transmitted over the gateway and the wireless links to actuator nodes (water‐meter, pumps, etc.) . The communication between the gateway and the sensor, weather, and actuator nodes was

301 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

two‐way (sensor nodes and weather nodes could be interrogated and reconfigured).

Lessons learned for The project consortium selected ZigBee as the underlying technology for project (very important; the wireless communication between the sensor nodes and the what we should consider gateway. ZigBee is based on the IEEE 802.15.4 standard. It is developed in developing our own for applications requiring low data rates with high requirements on long concept, the conclusion battery life and security. Being also a low cost technology, ZigBee can be of the literature source considered as a candidate for the Smart Farming use case in the or the project results) SmartAgriFood project.

An important lesson from wireless sensor network research, confirmed in the WATER‐BEE project, is that the network topologies might be significantly different depending on the area of interest. Namely, for small fields, the communication between the sensor nodes and the gateway is direct, while larger fields require mesh network topologies with intermediate routers. In the latter case, the energy constraints on the sensor nodes might present a primary hindrance, and special attention must be paid to the development of energy constrained communication protocols.

Finally, the importance of self‐organization (particularly, configuration and healing) in wireless sensor networks was recognized also for the irrigation scenario in the WATER‐BEE project. Self‐configuration means that after the initial deployment, the sensors are able to detect the neighbours and develop routing mechanisms in order to send the messages to the base station (gateway) or intermediate routers. In self‐ healing, an eventual node failure is mitigated by an automatic reconfiguration of the network.

Further information: Optional

302 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

Deliverable D100.1: Review and analysis of key preceding R&D activities Contributors: All

Name this information item: Why the Internet only just works

Provider of this information: Name: Richard Lehmann e-mail: [email protected] Project Partner: CentMa

Background _X_ Literature ___ Project ___ System product (eg market software) ___ Expert experience, specify who: ______Other, specify: ______

Focus ___ Information needs of businesses ___ Information needs of consumers ___ Information needs of policy ___ Information organization for logistics or transparency (collection, storage, communication etc. of information) ___ Information organization for farm cooperation ___ Chain communication organization (between enterprises or between enterprises and consumers) ___ System organization (combinations of hardware, software, management, institutions involved, etc.) ___ Process organization (production, distribution processes) _X_ IT components _X_ Future Internet functionalities ___ Other, specify: ______

Sector ___ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source Handley, M. (2006). Why the Internet only just works. BT Technology Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3 (pp. 119-129).

Content with project The core Internet protocols have not changed significantly in more than relevance a decade, in spite of exponential growth in the number of Internet users and the speed of the fastest links. The requirements placed on the net are also changing, as digital convergence finally occurs. Will the Internet cope gracefully with all this change, or are the cracks already beginning to show? The paper examines how the Internet has coped with past challenges resulting in attempts to change the architecture and core protocols of the Internet. Unfortunately, the recent history of failed architectural changes does not bode well. With this history in mind, some of the challenges currently facing the Internet are exposed.

Lessons learned for The Internet was never designed to be optimal for any particular prob- project lem – its great strength is that it is a general-purpose network that can support a wide range of applications and a wide range of link technologies. The Internet is also a cost-effective network – it does not make great promises about the quality of service that it provides. It is good

303 Project SmartAgriFood, Deliverable D100.1, April 18, 2011 Responsible: CentMa

enough for a wide range of applications, but anyone considering tele- surgery or remote-control of a nuclear power station might well be ad- vised to look somewhere else. It basically provides 80% of the capability for 20% of the cost. If we wanted 100% of the functionality, so that tele- surgery routinely could be performed over the Internet with very low risk, then it is highly likely that the network would be too expensive for the vast majority of users who wish to exchange e-mail, chat, or surf the Web. However, the requirements are changing. Convergence progresses apace, in spite of the problems, and these changed requirements bring with them risks. The Internet is going to suffer growing pains as it progresses from providing 80% of the functionality to providing 90+% of the functionality, as called for by the new requirements. The track record is not at all good – the history of major changes that have been successful is one of changes implemented at the last minute. This should not be a surprise – there are always too many immediate issues to be concerned with to invest time and money on those that are not currently critical. And consensus for architectural change is very hard to reach unless faced with a specific and pressing problem.

Further information

304 Provider of this information (please specify): Name: e-mail: Project Partner: NKUA Background _X_ Literature __ Project __ System product (eg market (please mark what the software) information is based __ Expert experience, specify who: on) ______Other, specify: ______

Sector _X_ Agriculture, specify product: ______Food, specify product: ______

Source References: (where to find; e.g. Literature source, 1. Ian F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. project name and web Cayirci, "Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey," Computer site, etc.) Networks Elsevier Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 393–422, March 2002. 2. Römer, Kay; Friedemann Mattern (December 2004), "The Design Space of Wireless Sensor Networks", IEEE Wireless Communications 11 (6): 54–61, doi:10.1109/MWC.2004.1368897 3. Sohraby, K., Minoli, D., Znati, T. "Wireless sensor networks: technology, protocols, and applications, John Wiley and Sons", 2007 ISBN 978-0-471-74300-2, pp. 203– 209 4. Hart, J. K. and Martinez, K. (2006) Environmental Sensor Networks:A revolution in the earth system science? Earth- Science Reviews, Vol. 78 . pp. 177–191 5. Libelium's agriculture system 6. Starman Electric, DataBridge Wireless I/O Modules 7. Gascón, David; Bielsa, Alberto "Waspmote uses GSM base

305 stations as an alternative to GPS location" [4] 8. Akyildiz, I.F., Wang, X., "A Survey on Wireless Mesh Networks" IEEE Radio Communications, vol. 43, September 2005 9. Muaz Niazi, Amir Hussain, Agent based Tools for Modeling and Simulation of Self-Organization in Peer-to-Peer, Ad- Hoc and other Complex Networks, Feature Issue, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol.47 No.3, March 2009, pp 163 – 173. Paper 10. Eduardo F. Nakamura, Antonio A. F. Loureiro, Alejandro C. Frery. Information fusion for wireless sensor networks: Methods, models, and classifications, ACM Computing Surveys, Volume 39, Issue 3, Article 9, September 2007. 11. Eduardo F. Nakamura, Heitor S. Ramos, Leandro A. Villas, Horacio A.B.F. de Oliveira, Andre L.L. de Aquino, Antonio A.F. Loureiro. A reactive role assignment for data routing in event-based wireless sensor networks, Computer Networks Volume 53, Issue 12, pp 1980–1996, August 2009. 12. Alzaid, H., Foo, E., Nieto, J. G., Secure data aggregation in wireless sensor network: a survey, AISC '08 Proceedings of the sixth Australasian conference on Information security - Volume 81.

Content with project A wireless sensor network (WSN) consists of spatially relevance distributed autonomous sensors to monitor physical or environmental conditions, such as temperature, sound, vibration, pressure, humidity, moisture etc. and to cooperatively pass their data through the network to a main location. The more modern networks are bi-directional, enabling also to control the activity of the sensors. The WSN is built of "nodes" where each node is connected to one or sometimes several sensors. The topology of the WSNs can vary from a simple star network to an advanced multi-hop wireless mesh network. The propagation technique between the hops of the network can be routing or flooding. WSN Applications Area Monitoring The WSN is deployed over a region where some phenomenon is to be monitored. When the sensors detect the event being monitored (heat, pressure), the event is reported to one of the base stations, which then takes appropriate action (e.g., send a message on the internet or to a satellite).

306 Environmental Monitoring Wireless sensor networks are also used to control the temperature and humidity levels. When the temperature and humidity drops below specific levels, the manager must be notified via e-mail or cell phone text message. Landfill ground well level monitoring and pump counter Wireless sensor networks can be used to measure and monitor the water levels within all ground wells in the landfill site and monitor leachate accumulation and removal. A wireless device and submersible pressure transmitter monitors the leachate level. The sensor information is wirelessly transmitted to a central data logging system to store the level data, perform calculations, or notify personnel when a service vehicle is needed at a specific well. Agriculture Using wireless sensor networks within the agricultural industry is increasingly common; using a wireless network frees the farmer from the maintenance of wiring in a difficult environment. Gravity feed water systems can be monitored using pressure transmitters to monitor water tank levels, pumps can be controlled using wireless I/O devices,] and water use can be measured and wirelessly transmitted back to a central control center for billing. Irrigation automation enables more efficient water use and reduces waste. Characteristics The main characteristics of a WSN include:  Power consumption constrains for nodes using batteries or energy harvesting  Ability to cope with node failures  Mobility of nodes  Dynamic network topology  Communication failures  Heterogeneity of nodes  Scalability to large scale of deployment  Ability to withstand harsh environmental conditions  Ease of use  Unattended operation. Hardware Architecture They usually consist of a processing unit with limited computational power and limited memory, sensors or MEMS (including specific conditioning circuitry), a communication device (usually radio transceivers or alternatively optical), and a power source usually in the form of a battery. Other possible inclusions are energy harvesting modules,

307 secondary ASICs, and possibly secondary communication devices (e.g. RS-232 or USB). The base stations are one or more distinguished components of the WSN with much more computational, energy and communication resources. They act as a gateway between sensor nodes and the end user as they typically forward data from the WSN on to a server. Other special components in routing based networks are routers, designed to compute, calculate and distribute the routing tables. Many techniques are used to connect to the outside world including mobile phone networks, satellite phones, radio modems, high power WiFi links etc. Standards Several standards are currently either ratified or under development for wireless sensor networks. There are a number of standardization bodies in the field of WSNs. The IEEE focuses on the physical and MAC layers; the Internet Engineering Task Force works on layers 3 and above. In addition to these, bodies such as the International Society of Automation provide vertical solutions, covering all protocol layer. Finally, there are also several non-standard, proprietary mechanisms and specifications. Standards are used far less in WSNs than in other computing systems. However predominant standards commonly used in WSN communications include:  WirelessHART  ISA100  IEEE 1451  ZigBee / 802.15.4  IEEE 802.11 Concepts Distributed sensor network If a centralised architecture is used in a sensor network and the central node fails, then the entire network will collapse, however the reliability of the sensor network can be increased by using distributed architecture. Distributed architecture is used in WSNs for the following reasons:  Sensor nodes are prone to failure,  For better collection of data  To provide nodes with backup in case of failure of the central node We also take care of nodes sensing redundant information and forwarding the data that is of no use. There is also no

308 centralized body to allocate the resources and they have to be self organized. Data visualization The data gathered from wireless sensor networks is usually saved in the form of numerical data in a central base station. Additionally, the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is specifying standards for interoperability interfaces and metadata encodings that enable real time integration of heterogeneous sensor webs into the Internet, allowing any individual to monitor or control Wireless Sensor Networks through a Web Browser. Secure Data Aggregation in WSN Typically, there are three types of nodes in WSN: normal sensor nodes, aggregators, and a querier. The aggregators collect data from a subset of the network, aggregate the data using a suitable aggregation function and then transmit the aggregated result to an upper aggregator or to the querier who generates the query. The querier is entrusted with the task of processing the received sensor data and derives meaningful information reflecting the events in the target field. It can be the base station or sometimes an external user who has permission to interact with the network depending of the network architecture. Data communication between sensors, aggregators and the querier consumes a large portion of the total energy consumption of the WSN.

Lessons learned for We must consider: project (very 1. The power supply. If the WSN will be self important; what we powered(batteries, energy harvesting) or need power should consider in supply from the power network. developing our own 2. Energy consumption of Wireless Sensors. If the WSN concept, the is self powered this is a major issue. conclusion of the literature source or the 3. The general ground of the system to reduse the noise project results) from power network or external sources. 4. The structured cabling of the WSN and the whole network. If the unit is agricultural unit the structured cabling will be a major issue to the farmer. Further information: Optional

309 Case: Future Store 1 and 2 (Prof. B.H.)

In 2004 the German METRO-Group remodelled a big supermarket of its REAL-chain as a test-market for new technologies. While the store was under operation about 50 technologies were tested in response to the acceptance by the consumer and in connection with efficiency or better sales. Some of the tools were:

- link to central merchandise system for the shelves - Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) - Multi-Media Shelves - Smart Scales identifying bananas, tomatoes etc. - Electronic Information Systems (electronic kiosk) - Smart Trolley (GPS-guided shopping) - Self-Check-out

To give an idea about the GPS-guided shopping: - the customer takes a shopping trolley and is identifying himself by a loyalty-card - the trolley then builds-up the data-panel of the last personal shoppings of that card- holder - it starts to guide him through the market (“you turn right hand side to the shelf, where you always buy milk”) - it gives according to promotion additional advice (“normally you buy 5 packs of milk- today we offer you a six-pack …) or (“normally” you buy a wine from Germany – today we offer you a special wine from South Africa)

Of course the trolley could say also: “Now stop at the electronic kiosk and click the new info about smart-agrifood”!

In 2009 METRO started in its Future Store 2 to analyse the usage and impact of mobile phones. For example customers can pay at the check-out with their mobile phones.

310 Case Study Beef Labelling (Prof. B.H.)

Beef uptill the BSE-scandals in 1994 and 1996 was an anonymous product concerning its origin. Between birth of a calve and slaughtering the cow sometimes the living animal was sold three or five times – and after the slaughtering the beef-processing again could end in perhaps five different places. After that wholesales started … Building a system of tracking and tracing of cows and beef EHI Retail Institute registered in some cases up to 17 different companies being involved from farm to fork.

Today an EU-regulation defines obligatory the data-flow and data-storage. If in the final point of sales for the consumer other criteria than “Birth /Growth/ Slaughtering” are labelled – then every criteria mentioned to the consumer has to be documented within the flow-chart of the system. Example: “Raised on Meadow” which would be a differentiation to cows raised indoor will be documented and controlled via the system.

Data-flow and documentation:

If a calve is born immediately it has to be registered in a central data bank (in Germany at HIT: Herkunftsinformationssystem Tier/1/) The farmer gets for his cow - /2/ two earmarks - /3/an animal passport Any transfers of the calve from the farm of birth to other farms have to be documented at that animal passport/3/.

Any medical treatment of the calve has to be listed in a farm-documentation /4/

At the moment of slaughtering the farmer (if he slaughters) or the slaughter-house /5/ has to send the two earmarks /2/ and the animal passport /3/ to the HIT-office /1/.

While starting the processing of the meat /6/ each processing-partner goes back to the documentation of the last partner of this chain of tracking/tracing/responsibility.

While the system from /1/ to /4/ is always based on the individual cows from the slaughtering onwards it might be registered as groups (!). Those groups might be “five cows from Farm A” or “slaughtering of July 28th: 5 cows Farm B, 10 cows from Farm C”.

Meat-wholesalers or retailers keep on the label a bar-code /7/ and data-files in the store /8/. At Kaufhof Cologne for example beef is labelled “controlled by Orgainvent” – and consumers can check - if they like - the number of meat in the counter versus the “beef-delivery documentation” within the store.

While the obligatory EU-regulation is using basic data at that moment, when a retailer refers to a special control-system like the private Orgainvent , additional control-parameters are used. To use the info “Orgainvent” on whatever level (slaughtering/wholesale/retail) means additional supervision and control beside the government bodies.

Participating in Orgainvent that retailer/wholesaler or beef-supplier is legally signing a contract to choose out of an Orgainvent-panel /9/ a control-unit like SGS to ask them on their own costs to run controls. In case of defaults Orgainvent /10/ gets an info to start immediately punishment of that partner. Orgainvent also gets information from government if their controls show defaults. Also in those cases punishment starts by a sanction committee of

311 Orgainvent. There are different clarifications of punishment – the worst is to be kicked out of the system and then no longer to deliver to those big important chain-stores like EDEKA, REWE or Metro.

/1/ - HIT data bank /2/ - ear-marks /3/ - -animal passport /4/ - farm documentation /5/ - slaughtering data banks /6/ - processing data-banks /7/ - use of bar-coding from /5/ to /6/: data –bank GS1 /8/ - printed/written instore-documentation /9/ - Orgainvent-control partners /10/ Orgainvent-data bank

Potential future.

Instore: scanning at a technical kiosk and info-range via that kiosk or via i-phone etc.

312

313 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/7435287.html

314 European ICT Strategic Research Agenda for Agri-food & Rural Development

A vision for 2015

AMI@Netfood is a Project funded by the European Commission, DG INFSO under the Specific Programme, Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area / Thematic Priority IST

315 Project Core Team

Project Coordinator Mr. Fernando Ubieta INNOPOLE, Spain

P E

Project Partners In alphabetical order:

Dr. Dragan Stokic ATB, Bremen Germany Mr. Harald Sundmaeker ATB, Bremen Germany Mr. Yilmaz Çakir ARA Limited, Turkey

Dr. Wilfried Enzenhofer CATT, Austria, Mr. José Campos CATT, Austria, Dr. David Mulligan CIMRU, University Galway, Ireland

Mr. Lieven Callewaert CYBELIA, Groupe Glon, France

Mr. Massimo Garuti Democenter—Sipe, Italy Mr. Luca Azzani Democenter—Sipe, Italy

Ms. Anastasia Garbi EXODUS, Greece

Dr. Herdon Miklos HAAI, University Debreçen, Hungary Dr. Luis Maia Carneiro INESC Porto, Portugal Mr. Fernando Ubieta INNOPOLE, Spain

Mr. Jesús V. de Juan Bejarano INNOPOLE, Spain Ms. Silvia García INNOPOLE, Spain Dr. Bjarki a. Brinjarsson Nyherji, Iceland

Dr. Jorma Riihikoski University Tampere, Finland Prof. Dr hab. Inz. Leszek Wozniak Rzeszow University of Technology, Poland Mr. Karel Charvat Wirelessinfo, Czech Republic

Mr. Pavel Gnip Wirelessinfo, Czech Republic

316 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Foreword

The number of member states in the European Union is continuously growing. Collectively the EU states, new and old, have the potential to become major competitors in the global food industry. They provide excellent conditions for agri- food production and processing, accompanied by a huge diversity of competencies in the domains of food industry development and research.

However, across the EU, the young generations in particular are migrating from rural areas to the cities, eager to experience new lifestyles and to take advantage of personal opportunities available from urbanisation. If it continues un- abated, this pattern of migration will gradually depopulate the rural areas of the EU, leaving behind a vulnerable ageing population and threatening the viability of rural communities. In addition, valuable traditional agribusiness skills, and the dynamic for innovation will be lost if the young generation move away. This last dimension to the issue has the potential to greatly damage future development and innovation in European agribusiness.

The increasing trend of citizens to relocate to the urban regions in search of a higher standard of living and increased opportunities that are not available in the rural areas of Europe has been the cause of much concern. Hence the up- surge in demand for solutions to help realise the same opportunities in rural regions of Europe as are available in urban areas has provided many challenges for Europe’s researchers.

To remain competitive and specifically to keep the highest value-added parts of the food value chain in the European Union, there is a need to focus on the improvement of complex agri-food networks as well as ensuring the ongoing vi- tality and viability of rural communities, for the sake of individual citizens, business and European society in general.

To support realising the hidden potential of Europe’s rural regions, the European Commission has funded several Re- search and Technology Development (RTD) programmes, which afford key stakeholders the opportunity to have an input into shaping the future direction of Europe’s rural development programmes. The research networks funded under this programme provide participants with the opportunity to work together with other key stakeholders. This funding mechanism also enables the key stakeholders to discuss future challenges and to combine forces to chart out the direction of a more modern and competitive Europe.

Under the Information Society Technologies (IST) branch of the European Union, the AMI@Netfood Strategic Re- search Agenda (SRA) aims to identify the key challenges of the agri-food industry as well as exploring possible solutions to the challenges facing rural development in the EU.

The AMI@Netfood project has drawn together a wide range of experts from diverse stakeholder groups, who collabora- tively identified key research priorities and challenges for the rural development and agri-food sectors.

Rural development and agri-food innovations experience difficulty in harnessing the knowledge of the key stakeholders to provide these solutions. However thanks to the core AMI@Netfood team, the initial stages of building this Strategic Research Agenda have already succeeded in engaging many of these key actors, from policy makers to agri-food producers, from rural associations to research centres and universities, among others. Through these activities many of the stakeholders have indicated their commitment and support for the future research work proposed.

This document describes a vision for the future direction of the EU in the areas of rural development and agri-food collaboration. Part of the proposed work might take place in collaboration with initiatives funded under the European Tech- nology Platforms (ETPs) , such as Food for Life. In this way the Strategic Research Agenda will be more effective in organising and delivering the proposed innovations.

The task ahead proposes great challenges but is looked on with much enthusiasm by the existing consortium and many of the key stakeholders involved, such as the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), policy makers, universities, Research and Technology Development (RTD) partners and other member states. The activities of this proposed Stra- tegic Research Agenda will provide key competitive advantage to the EU in the area of agri-food as well as helping to realise the full potential of rural areas, and hence deliver tangible benefits to EU citizens. To this end we can ensure the increasing competitiveness of Europe as well as offering outstanding career opportunities to its young people.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 317 3 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Summary

The wide deployment and use of IST solutions and applications specifically oriented to the agri-food industry and rural development domains will facilitate the transformation of agri-food businesses into competitive and dynamic knowledge-based networked organisations, as well as facilitating the participation and ultimately the complete integration of the EU rural population into the Knowledge Society.

In April 2,005, under the Framework VII Pro- In order to support the agri-food sector a set of gramme of the European Commission, fourteen preliminary interviews combined with a series of organisations from fourteen different countries reviews have shown that there is a clear need initiated the AMI@Netfood project. The objective for a sectoral-oriented approach on ICT in agri- of this project was ‘to support the implementation food and rural domains. Presently, such sectoral of the Information Society Technologies (IST) Re- approaches are not effectively implemented in all search Priority and Framework Programme, pro- EU regions, or as EU-RTD strategies. viding a long-term vision of future trends in Scien- To achieve a more effective implementation of tific and Technology Research oriented to the de- EU-wide RTD activities, it will be necessary to har- velopment and application of Information Society monise the different RTD strategies in different technologies to the agri-food industry and rural 1 regions. Currently, cross-regional collaboration is development domain’ . limited, and inadequately implemented. The key outcomes achieved by the AMI@Netfood The AMI@Netfood working groups have high- project by December 2,006 are: lighted the importance of supporting the new • Identifying and reaching EU consensus on vision of Collaborative Working Environments medium- to long-term IST Research priorities in the agri-food and rural domains. We envis- and age a new collaborative environment oriented to directly supporting the activities of individuals and • Proposing joint activities to support the imple- groups, allowing effective collaboration across mentation of several of the identified priorities diverse actors in the agri-food industry, and con- The approach taken for the realisation of the sumers and the wider community, especially in AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda is de- rural areas. fined in Figure 1 The key issues identified which should be addressed in the application of ICT in agri-food and

current RTD projects rural domains are: current RTD strategies in different regions Analysis of (a) traceability of products & services policy requirements at different regions from: Documentation & policy makers- public legislation (b) collaborative working environments Policy Makers authorities and industry RTD and RTD University (c) innovation & development in rural areas Agrifood Industry & Assoc. Rural Development Assoc. Questionnaires 187 Participants Industy & Trade Assoc. (d) ICT applications & infrastructure Others The Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) developed First draft of the SRA and Proposal by the AMI@Netfood working groups contains key Joint activities research guidelines to support the development of Workshops Policy Makers the agri-food and rural areas from an IST perspec- RTD Semminars University tive. Agrifood Industry & Assoc. Face to Face 248 Participants in Rural Development Assoc. interviews validation activities Industy & Trade Assoc. As presented in Figure 1, the SRA covers the Others Questionnaires main aspects identified through analysis of past Other Projects Final SRA and and current Research Training and Development Proposal 5 Joint activities (RTD) projects and strategies, and addresses the issues which the stakeholders consulted consider most relevant. Figure 1 Approach for the Realisation of the AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda

1 Technical Annex AMI@Netfood project, DG-INFSO-FP6 – IST-2005-015776

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 318 4 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Through a series of workshops throughout The AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda Europe, and a wide number of validation activities, will: the first SRA has been presented to the key stakeholders from the agri-food industry and rural de- • Support sustainable rural and regional develop- velopment domains (See for example Figure 2 ment to improve competitiveness at a pan- below). European level. • Improve the level of consumer confidence in food manufacturing in Europe. • Support coordination between key policy makers throughout Europe. • Contribute to sustainable rural development throughout Europe. • Promote the ‘fork to farm’ approach to add value to the food chain, giving producers a better understanding of consumer requirements by integrating their demands (particularly in refer- Figure 2 Poster of the Validation Workshop performed in ence to quality and safety) at each level of the Poland supply chain. Consensus has been reached in the final Strategic Research Agenda thanks to the active participation of more than 250 experts who have taken ac- In addition, the European Strategic Research tive part in the Validation Activities throughout Agenda will: Europe. • Provide an effective and sustained interaction between all stakeholders. • Present a well-defined Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for innovative food production and rural development.

• Offer a set of Pilot joint activities to promote the participation of key stakeholders throughout Europe for the future development of rural agricultural areas and key agrifood industry.

• Ensure increased participation of rural resi- Figure 3 Vice Minister Regional Research, Universities and Inno- dents in agricultural working life through innovation Ministry and Vice – rector Castilla – La Mancha Univer- sity, Research and Development Unit, during Validation Work- vations in collaborative technologies shop in Spain • Ensure increased confidence in the food supply In addition to holding validation meetings across among European consumers. the EU, as part of the validation process the AMI@Netfood project has designed a web-based validation questionnaire in ten different languages which has collected 169 completed questionnaires, mostly from Policy Makers, Public Authori- ties, Researchers and University personnel, agri – food industry representatives, rural development associations, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry representatives, among others. The content of this report is based on the opinions gathered through interaction with all the key stakeholders involved to draw up a vision for the future of the agri-food and rural development domains.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 319 5 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Contents

Foreword 3 Summary 4 1 Introduction 7 2 Vision for the European Strategy Research Agenda 8 3 Meeting Emerging Challenges of an Expanding Europe 10 4 Consensus on RTD Priority Programmes 14 5 Horizontal Activities 24 6 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgements 27

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 320 6 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

1. Introduction

According to the OECD definition, which is based The key motivation for looking at the agri-food on population density, rural regions represent 92% sector is that this area of activity has many diverse of EU territory. Furthermore, 19% of the EU popu- facets, including improved health awareness aim- lation lives in predominantly rural regions and 37% ing to improve quality of life through healthy eat- live in significantly rural regions. ing, and the potential contribution of the agri-food industry to the sustainable development program. A study by the OECD has found that these regions generate 45% of Gross Value Added (GVA) A coherent research strategy serving the rural ar- in the EU, and provide 53% of the employment, eas in order to improve agricultural performance but tend to lag behind as regards a number of requires a more participative approach that is both socio-economic indicators, including Structural led and executed by the key stakeholders con- Indicators, compared to non-rural areas. In rural cerned. areas, income per inhabitant is around a third less The primary aim of this strategic research agenda than in urban areas, activity rates for women are is to promote and encourage the direct and full lower, the service sector is less developed, rates participation of key stakeholders in the develop- of attendance at third level education are generally ment and deployment of key innovative technolo- lower, and a lower percentage of households have gies into the rural agri-food domain. access to ‘broadband’ internet. This deliberate refocusing of research technology Agriculture and Rural development are very and investment, together with effective technology closely linked. In EU-15, agriculture accounts for transfer, is a prerequisite to ensuring the full col- 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in the new laboration of all key stakeholders throughout the Member States for 3%, and in Romania and Bul- supply chain and rural areas. garia for more than 10%. This is imperative for realising the full potential of The combined agricultural and food sector repre- Europe’s rural domain. sents an important part of the EU economy, accounting for 15m jobs (8.3% of total employment) The AMI@Netfood SRA will engage key stake- and 4.4% of GDP across the EU-25. The EU is holders at regional, national and European level the world's largest producer of food and bever- and coordinate their participation through the de- ages, with combined production worth an esti- ployment of a coherent strategic research agenda mated €675 billion. and its associated set of horizontal activities. However, the sector remains highly polarised and fragmented in terms of size with significant opportunities and threats for firms. Agriculture and forestry represent 77% of land-use in the EU-25. There is significant room for improvement in the application of modern technology to economic activity in these areas. Regional development in Europe offers substantial scope for improvement through the deployment of collaborative technologies to improve both social and industrial indicators. The agricultural and food sectors must seize the opportunities offered by new approaches, technologies and innovation to meet evolving market demand both in Europe and globally.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 321 7 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

2. Vision for the European Strategy Research Agenda

The vision for the AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) is to have an effective integrated pan-European concentrated research in rural development, the agricultural food industry and collaborative management. The SRA involves novel and innovative collaborative technologies in national, regional and local rural development areas that are in line with the needs, wants and expectations of European citizens and food customers. These collaborative platforms and innovative technologies will support the increased participation of rural citizens in modern working and living standards as well as improving customer confidence, and sustainable food production and manufacturing.

The development of the Strategic Research The key challenges identified are related to: Agenda in the agri-food and rural domain, brings • increasing the level of consumer involvement together key actors and stakeholders, industry in the food chain; both small and large, policy makers, governments, retailers, wholesalers, logistics, machinery, farm- • improving the collaborative potential of citi- ers, and consumers in a way that will help to real- zens by raising their skill levels in use of ICT; ise the full key competitive advantage of Europe’s • supporting the rural sector through the devel- rural agricultural domain by increasing investment opment of new and innovative ICT solutions; in Research and Technology Development (RTD) focused on the rural and agri-food sectors, and • creating new business models to take advan- vigorously promoting investment in this sector of tage of the innovations in technology; the European Community. • creating more attractive living conditions and jobs particularly for rural dwellers, with a view to holding the rural population in rural areas. In order to advance this set of priorities, and progress development of these key technologies, the AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda has proposed the following four Research and Tech- nology Development domains:

• ICT applications for the complete traceability of products and services throughout a networked value chain The objectives of this research domain are to develop world class network management solutions that facilitate communication and co-operation between networks of SMEs and large enterprises in the agri-food and rural development domains. Furthermore, these solutions are a prerequisite, as basic infrastructure elements, to enable the management of food supply chains/networks, and virtual and extended enterprises, also providing the critical mass for future extension of services and ICT support in the agri-food value chain.

• Collaborative environments in agri-food industry and rural areas The Strategic Research Agenda tackles the key The provision of collaboration spaces to support challenges for the future sustainment and communication among teams in the agri-food in- competitive advantage of Europe in target dustry and between wider communities, specifi- AMI@Netfood domains. cally in the rural domain, may have an enormous

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 322 8 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

impact on productivity, innovation and creativity. people use the internet and access all types of content. The objectives of this research domain are focused on solving many specific requirements on This research domain includes development of Collaborative Working Environments (CWE) – In- inexpensive scalable technologies to support com- formation & Communication Technology (ICT) in munications such as Wire technologies, Wireless terms of decentralisation, environmental condi- technology (WIMAX), and Satellite technologies, tions, user experience, collaboration patterns (e.g. the development of middleware supporting rural IT frequency, timing), heterogeneity of CWE users deployment and socio-economic and political stud- (e.g. from farmers to large food industry) etc. ies focused on analysis of the human dimension of technology use and deployment.

• ICT applications supporting the management of natural resources and rural de- The interrelation between the different challenges velopment creating value for citizens identified in the scope of AMI@Netfood project, and businesses and the RTD Programmes proposed in the Strate- gic Research Agenda are shown in Figure 4. Rural areas are influenced by certain conditions which have particular impact on growth, jobs and There are interconnections between some of the sustainability. These issues include environment, objectives belonging to different RTD programmes food safety, sustainable production and climate and in some cases overlapping has been identi- change prevention which are major contemporary fied. concerns of the EU citizenry. As the Strategic Research Agenda proposes a The objectives of this domain address the devel- multifaceted oriented approach, this document opment of Information and Communication Tech- presents different interconnections and synergies nologies (ICT) for sector-specific applications between the Research and Technology Develop- (tourism, marketing, eServices), specific applica- ment Programmes proposed. These interrelations tions to improve quality of life in rural areas, and between the different RTD domains reflect the ICT applications and tools to support detection of wide range of different perspectives which have problems, and observation and management of been incorporated due to the active participation natural resources. of the different stakeholders. The multifaceted approach of the SRA will have the effect of greatly • Innovative ICT applications in rural ar- strengthening the EU agri-food industry, enriching eas using broadband infrastructure EU civic society through supporting an empow- ered, vibrant and sustainable rural community. Broadband is not simply a faster way to connect to the internet - it fundamentally changes the way

Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge SRA 1 2 3 4 5 6 Increase the areas in which European citizens find collaborative working working IncreasefindEuropean areas collaborative which the citizens in promoting knowledge and innovation for growth and creating moregrowth and and innovationfor knowledge promoting nrsrcueb en fcetn e uiesmdl nrrlareas infrastructurebybusinessmodelsrural in of new means creating niomnsasse yIT.Etn olbrtv Cstoagri-food environmentscollaborative assisted ICTs Extend by ICTs. chain by means of the wide adoption of relevant IS Technologies and ofadoption relevantby Technologies IS the of wide chain means

Agrifood and rural domain moreEurope attractiveMaking a Rural work, invest live, to and place Support European Agrifoodworld be toa especially industry, SMEs, Support European Increasevaluetheof level theinvolvement consumersagrifood in of Expand opportunities to increase competitiveness foropportunities Expand ICT European to increase competitiveness foropportunities Expand ICT European Contribute to trigger the investment in ICT and telecommunications the investmentand trigger ICT Contributeto in industry and rural domain and increasedomain to industryrural of inhabitants skills and rural industry by means of the development of applications and tools to and tools ofdevelopmentby industry applications means the of wide leader in the supply of safe food products that products to supplyincontribute leader safefood wide the of

RTD ICT applications for the consumers life of of healthquality and public promote complete traceability of agri-food products and services throughout a sector and rural European supportthe agrifood networked value chain benefit of new technologies benefitnew of RTD 2: Collaborative environments in agrifood and rural areas applications better jobs better

RTD 3: ICT as key enabler to support innovation and development in rural areas creating value for citizens and businesses

RTD 4: Innovative ICT applications in rural areas using broadband infrastructure

Horizontal Activities

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 323 9 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

3. Meeting Emerging Challenges of an Expanding Europe

Rural areas account for 45% of GVA and 53% of employment throughout Europe. The majority of economic activities in rural areas are directly linked to agri-food industry activities, thus any rural development strategy needs to take into consideration the role of agri-food activities. Considering the multifunctional role of rural activities, any change made in both agri-food industry and rural development will greatly influence other complementary issues such as environment management, food safety requirements and traditional production processes. Moreover rural areas face particular challenges as regards growth, jobs and sustainability in the coming years. But they offer real opportunities in terms of their potential for growth in new sectors, the provision of rural amenities and entertainment - tourism, their attractiveness as a place to live and work, and their role as a reservoir of natural resources and highly valued landscapes.

The present European strategy for rural develop- The AMI@Netfood project aims to develop and ment focuses on the stimulation and support of implement the most relevant Information Society satisfactory progress towards sustainable im- Technologies to address these challenges. provement of the livelihoods and quality of life of Six key challenges are discussed in this section. rural populations.

The Common Agriculture Policy itself has consid- erably evolved from the initial objective to provide Challenge 1. Support European agri-food in- a fair standard of living for the agricultural commu- dustry, especially SMEs, to be a world wide nity and to ensure the supply of sufficient quanti- leader in the supply of safe food products that ties of food at affordable prices. The current con- contribute to promote public health and quality text of the EU and its global strategy have of life of consumers changed dramatically. Europe is now heading to In the EU there are 23 million SMEs, providing fulfil the very ambitious goal defined in Lisbon, and around 75 million jobs and accounting for 99% of here rural activity necessarily plays a relevant role all enterprises. Small and Medium Enterprises also. (SMEs) contribute up to 80% of employment in To achieve the objectives mentioned, the new poli- some industrial sectors 2. cies must recognise the varied needs of the rural SMEs are thus a key to delivering stronger growth world, and simultaneously fulfil the expectations of and more and better today’s society at large and environmental require- jobs. ments. The new policies should take account of aspects such as the multi-functional and multi- In the rural domain, sectoral nature of the agri-food domain. these data are espe- The new situation of cially significant because most of the rural markets and society economy is based in and the appearance SMEs, mainly in agri- of new technologies that might be widely food SMEs. applicable in all sec- The agricultural sector tors of activity raise comprises almost 7 mil- new challenges for lion holdings, providing the rural sector. work for some 14 million people (EU-15)3.

2 http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entrepreneurship/index_en.htm. 3 Rural Develop. The impact of EU research (1998 – 2004). European Commision.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 324 10 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Being food-safe is of great importance in the EU. Challenge 2. Increase the level of involvement Consumers expect food safety to be guaranteed of consumers in the agrifood value chain by nowadays. means of the wide adoption of relevant IS Technologies and applications Nevertheless, many EU SMEs still have difficulties in adhering to the regulations in an efficient The agri-food sector is very much a consumer- way. driven sector, and consumers should therefore play an active role in the agri-food chain. ICT solutions will definitively support agri-food industries, mainly SMEs, to comply with EU regula- To facilitate this wide-ranging involvement of con- tions. sumers, it is obviously important to deliver detailed information to consumers about the characteris- The current traceability concept is linked to health tics, origin and route of the food products. and safety of products. During validation activities, a commitment was made that this concept will A wider adoption of IST and software applications change in the future into a traceability concept would be an important tool to promote a bi- based on a consumer-oriented approach and an directional involvement of consumers, by for ex- integrated quality management system (see Fig- ample creating user-friendly channels for sugges- ure 5). tions, complaints, etc.

2010 – 2013 However, many further developments are required 2006 in order to realise the full participation of citizens in Traceability oriented to Traceability oriented Integrated Quality the whole agri-food supply chain. legal requirements and to final consumer + Management health and safety To achieve this, emphasis shall be put on the fact products that involvement of customers, and their feedback, Figure 5. Expected evolution of the traceability concept need not specifically incorporate their home, but facilitate communication at the point of sale. Enabling food traceability over the food supply chain has become an important part of production Feedback from consumers to support product de- management, monitoring and control systems. velopment is an increasingly important issue. All activity in this area needs to involve producers, The incorporation of ICT tools to support collabo- consumers and also public organisations to en- ration between consumers and suppliers, as well able better quality assurance and inspection. as the creation of new information networks supported by ICT tools and applications, will greatly Food traceability systems need to be supported by contribute to achieving a deeper integration, com- integrated information systems allowing interaction munication and information flow between the dif- of different stakeholders including government ferent stakeholders in the supply chain, from fork bodies and private information systems, taking to farm and vice versa. into consideration confidential issues, such as data protection, among others. Circa 75% of the feedback received from the validation activities have rated this challenge as being The importance of quality assurance or inspection highly relevant; its implementation is seen as me- issues as a key challenge in food traceability dium to long term. should be highlighted. The results of the validation activities from key stakeholders further support It is assumed that effective involvement of con- this assertion, with almost 90% of the respondents sumers in the agri-food value chain may require a rating these issues as being of high importance. longer time horizon, specifically in regions where the technical and cultural prerequisites for such innovative models are still underdeveloped. Relevance Challenge 1 While in many European regions there is a high 59,3% 60,0% penetration of technology into consumers’ homes 50,0% (e.g. in France, Germany, Iceland, Norway), which 40,0% 29,3% helps to ease the path for further collaboration 30,0% between the agri-food industry and consumers, in 20,0% 8,4% less developed regions not even models for col- 3,0% 10,0% laboration between industrial teams and consum- 0,0% Low L - Medium H - Medium High ers exist.

Figure 6. Relevance Challenge 1

The results of validation activities further show that this issue is rated as a medium to long range challenge for Europe to meet.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 325 11 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Challenge 3. Increase the availability of col- Priority Challenge 3 laborative working environments assisted by ICTs for EU citizens. Extend collaborative ICTs to agri-food industry and rural domain and in- 50,0% 39,5% 41,3% crease skills of rural inhabitants to benefit of 40,0% new technologies 30,0% 19,2% 20,0% Collaboration in agriculture is based at present on 10,0% long-term relationships and traditional communica- 0,0% tion media and methods. A shift towards IT-based Long Medium Short collaboration will specifically need new interaction concepts and societal research aiming at identifi- Figure 7. Priority Challenge 3 cation of new approaches and basic learning con- However, even in regions (e.g. Iceland) with so- cepts for new forms of collaboration. phisticated systems and infrastructures for col- The provision of collaboration spaces to support laboration among teams within the agri-food in- communication among teams in agri-food industry dustry and wider communities, the main problem and between wider communities, specifically in the is still to refine the existing organisation of work rural domain, may have an enormous impact on and to install extended enterprise business proc- productivity, innovation and creativity in the agri- esses to increase cross-industry collaboration. food industry, and on rural development. Collaborative working environments are consid- This, providing adequate training activities are in ered an important aspect, but there is often a need place, will allow higher numbers of people to be- for a further clarification on how to distinguish become effectively involved in the innovation proc- tween business-oriented functionality in the supply ess, knowledge creation, decision making and chain, and the collaborative work aspects. The problem solving. Strategic Research Agenda intends to develop future guidelines to improve Information and Com- The use of ICT is important to increase collabora- munication Technologies – facilitated collaborative tion between citizens, but it has to be underlined work processes. that higher levels of education and training are crucial for a broader and better use of ICT. Of key importance is the provision of ICT-based Challenge 4. Expand opportunities to increase solutions which will not interrupt the logical work- competitiveness for European ICT industry by flow of the users, but are capable of providing in- development of applications and tools to sup- telligent and non-intrusive support. port the European agri-food and rural sector The provision of new collaborative environments European rural businesses, and among them the in the rural domain is likely to radically improve the agri-food SMEs, still have many specific require- quality of life by enabling the inclusion of rural in- ments demanding the development of tailored IST habitants in the general interactive life of the civic applications and tools. community. Rural applications can be considered an enor- This will provide a technological support to over- mous market domain and source of revenue for come barriers currently preventing rural sustain- the EU ICT sector. AMI-based ICT support can be able development and enable people in (remote) a Unique Selling Proposition of the European agri- rural regions to fully participate in the knowledge food supply chain, in competition in the global society. marketplace. Challenge 3 was rated as being of high to medium relevance and its implementation is seen at me-

dium - to long term.

This Challenge is strongly related to both technological, and business and cultural aspects. Therefore, in many regions in which necessary infrastructures (i.e. hardware, software and per-

sonal resources) are not yet established and widely adopted, this challenge is seen as being achievable in the medium – long term (see Figure 7).

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 326 12 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

ICT in agri-food might specifically offer great po- style, cultural life and possibilities for recreation. tential for farmers as business management tools, To create societal change in the long run, this as well as for improvement of the collaboration in challenge is of maximum relevance and priority the supply chain. (see Figure 8 below). There is a need to take the right actions quickly to avoid increasing abandon- To realise this potential, specific RTD tasks need ment of the rural zones. to be further developed in the area of ICT to reflect the true nature of the rural and agri-food domain in People will only stay in those areas, and will only terms of both price and functionalities. be attracted to them, if life conditions are not significantly worse than in urban areas. Analysis of the feedback received shows that the level of consensus of the key stakeholders regard- The food industry plays a major role in rural areas ing this key challenge is high. as the main source of income. Increasing numbers of citizens are open to the possibility of leading a The analysis also shows this to be a medium- to life in a double-home situation, having one home long-term priority. in an urban area and another in a rural area. To be able to maintain their employment with companies from a distance, adequate ICT infrastructure Challenge 5. Contribute to trigger the invest- needs to exist, as well as the proper collaborative ment in ICT and telecommunications infra- environments. Ways of working also need to be structure by means of creating new business taken into consideration as well as the develop- models in rural areas ment of flexible infrastructure and company cul- While in many European regions adequate ICT ture. infrastructure is already in place, in others consid- Provision of an adequate ICT infrastructure and erable improvements are still needed. The main technology support in European rural environ- issue in less developed areas is to generate appli- ments is an essential measure in order to develop cations that make further infrastructure deploy- rural areas by securing the population and provid- ment commercially sound. ing the same services, in quantity and quality, as In highly developed areas, consideration should are available in urban areas. Through the promo- be given to matching current applications with the tion of CWE (collaborative work environment) ap- infrastructure, i.e. creating solutions with consider- plications and tools including mobile applications, able life-time, allowing the industry to adequately rural areas will be able to offer the possibility of deploy solutions before changes in infrastructure creating new jobs and new business opportunities, demand application changes. and provide knowledge and support tools to facilitate the worktasks of rural-based workers. The The wide adoption of ICT applications and tools in stakeholders view this overall challenge as a me- rural areas will in the long term generate a source dium- to long-term priority. of revenue that will support the payback on ICT investments in those areas. Results from the validation exercises have shown that there is a high level of interest from key stake- Priority Challenge 6

holders in addressing this challenge. 47,9% The priority rating was also shown to be more me- 50,0% 40,0% 28,1% dium- to short-term. 24,0% 30,0% Moreover, a logical consequence of approaching 20,0% this challenge – especially in terms of its long- 10,0% term implications – will be to enable European 0,0% Long Medium Short suppliers of ICT and telecommunications infrastructure to improve their position as global technology providers. Figure8. Priority Challenge 6

Challenge 6. Making Rural Europe a more attractive place to live, invest and work, promoting knowledge and innovation for growth and creating more and better jobs There is a general trend in the young generation to leave rural areas and move towards urban centres to fulfil personal preferences concerning life-

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 327 13 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

4. Consensus on RTD Priority Programmes

To adequately succeed in the accomplishment of selected long-term challenges, from the perspective of Information Society Technologies (IST), several RTD activities need to be further developed. Among a number of potential activities discussed among the AMI@Netfood constituency, and lately redefined during validation activities, four specific RTD domains have been selected as the most appropriate to be developed in support to the sector. The selected RTD domains describe the strategic priorities in IST which will most likely contribute to the development of the rural and agri-food domains in the medium to long term.

RTD 3: ICT for Managing Natural Resources & Rural Development

RTD 1: Consumer RTD 2: Traceability Collaborative of Agri-food Retailer Working Products & Environments Services Industry for Agri-food and Rural (Fork2Farm) Farms & Fishery Areas

RTD 4: InnovativeInnovative ICT using Broadband Infrastructure

Figure9. displays the RTD domains envisioned

RTD 3: ICT for Managing Natural Resources & Rural Development

RTD 1: Consumer RTD 2: Traceability Collaborative RTD 1: ICT applications for the complete traceability of products of Agri-food Retailer Working Products & Environments Services Industry for Agri-food and Rural and services throughout a networked value chain (Fork2Farm) Farms & Fishery Areas

RTD 4: Innovative ICT using Broadband Infrastructure

The food industry has undergone a major shift • Food Chain Management over the past number of years whereby retailers In addition to food quality and sustainable food have realised their own business potentials and production, food chain management examines the importance, and consumers have changed their complexity of the different food value chains habits, resulting in a major lifestyle shift. (bread, pasta, meat, milk, wine, etc.). In response to the shift in markets, businesses In order to effectively realise these emerging tech- must now focus not only on traditional economic nology changes and innovations, the research and technological interests but also on topical is- area can be divided into several specific research sues such as food safety, quality service, and en- objectives. vironmentally friendly production. One of the priority objectives in this area is the In summary, there are a number of key character- development of interoperable integrated intra- istics that the agri-food sector will have in relation and inter-enterprise applications. Organisations to the management of its supply chain network, need to use and manipulate all of the vital informa- including: tion residing within their disparate internal sys- • Improved Food Quality and Manufacturing tems, and the systems of their partner companies, supply chains and customers, to achieve a clear • Improved Food Safety view of their business operations. The solutions developed in this research domain will provide a • Improved Sustainable Food Production cost-effective way of adding this functionality,

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 328 14 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

bringing agri-food companies closer to their cus- The information within the network tomers, suppliers, and development partners. The is synchronised, real-time and solutions will manage versions/revisions of infor- available. While synchronisation is mation and the relationships between information facilitated by technology it requires as well as automate process interactions. more of a mind-set change and Additionally, the solutions will facilitate information involves a new way of doing business collabora- access by employees and other supply chain con- tively. From a technology viewpoint there is a tributors while working with their own legacy tools. need to develop a new set of business languages The total business integration framework allows and ontologies combined with a set of technology the RTD partners to develop a solution offering a standards to provide businesses with a framework new level of integration and benefit to the custom- for inter-enterprise integration. This will enable the ers. Integration frameworks and interoperability collaborative management of the dynamic supply standards (like ebxml and others) need to be con- network. sidered with emphasis on meeting the special re- Other key challenges in this domain aim to in- quirements of the agri-food industry. crease the effectiveness and efficiency of Another key area in devel- knowledge sharing. opment involves the devel- Effective knowledge sharing relies heavily on a opment of applications knowledge infrastructure, which allows enterprises and tools to improve net- in a dynamic network to understand one another work collaboration. An properly. This will be provided by the ontological individual enterprise needs and knowledge innovation management work. to achieve integration be- While extended dynamic networks must develop tween its functional entities. innovative, value-added products and services, it Internal integration can be is the dynamic network that will contribute most of achieved by using an En- the information that becomes useful product terprise Resource Planning knowledge, such as traceability information. It is (ERP) system. Sometimes important that semantic innovation and information internal application integra- be explicitly described and enabled. tion is achieved using some form of middleware. Specifically, this research Web services can also facilitate so-called ‘islands domain addresses the objec- of technology’ between different departments or tive of ‘Management of dy- divisions inside an enterprise. namic collaborative networks through the development of Once an enterprise has solved intra-enterprise harmonisation frameworks, application integration issues, it can begin to open platform specifications, evolve towards integration with its suppliers and models and ontologies’ by customers. Inter-enterprise integration is most developing a framework that likely to run over the public internet, will require defines the dynamic network security measures and will most likely leverage in terms of the entities and XML data formats. The integration of applications the data exchanges that oc- (land-based and mobile) between enterprises fa- cur between these entities. cilitates the management of entire supply networks and the collaboration of the players in the The outcome of this research domain will be a set network. From a technical perspective this is the of structured definitions of the agri-food extended inter-enterprise integration of existing heterogene- and virtual enterprise and how it contributes to the ous legacy systems so that they can exchange creation of extended products. critical enterprise information. Integration middle- Further to these objectives the improvement of the ware is rapidly adopting Web Services as its stan- customer orientated business model is of key dard, concentrating on bridging enterprises and islands within enterprises. importance. One of the key aspects of this research domain is This research domain recognises the importance to concentrate on how web services interact with of strong reference architectures and uses existing other middleware, applications, ERP systems and and emerging reference standards throughout in data base management systems in the agri-food order to realise the customer-driven enterprise. domain. When the enterprises in an extended network have integrated their applications to a high degree, then the network becomes synchronised. It has the ability to act and react quickly to demands.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 329 15 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Web-services and the semantic web are recog- Research topics will include nised as being very important for the future of business-to-business communication, especially those web applications that display an awareness Network collaboration of the context that they are operating in, and this is reflected in the implementation for this research • Technologies that will improve interaction and domain. collaboration between the key nodes on the The development of applications and tools to supply network support dynamic network management pre- • Agent based technologies that will distribute sents the final key objective. This research domain and customise the key pieces of information is aimed at the management of the dynamic net- required for complete traceability of products work. Supply networks are typically made up of and services. some large companies and many SMEs. • Knowledge sharing and storage technologies The solutions and technology developed as part of for networking in the agri-food industry. this research domain will primarily support the SME side and have to consider the special re- • Semantic web-based schemas to promote quirements of the agri-food sector. the extraction and comprehension of key in- The key objectives defined above are seen by the formation stores. key stakeholders to be of high overall relevance, as is the overall proposed RTD domain. Key stakeholders view timeframe for attainment of Manufacturing this objective to be medium- to short-term. . • Technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of doing business in a networked environment

• Real-time communication methods and technologies throughout the network • Integrated production networks

RTD 3: ICT for Managing Natural Resources & Rural Development

RTD 1: Consumer RTD 2: Traceability Collaborative of Agri-food Retailer Working Products & Environments Services Industry for Agri-food RTD 2: Collaborative working environments for Innovation in agri- and Rural (Fork2Farm) Farms & Fishery Areas food industry and rural domain RTD 4: Innovative ICT using Broadband Infrastructure

Consumer Retailer Logistics

Collaborative Environments

Discovery of Digital Models Communication Resources of Product/Process Means Collaborative Monitoring/Tracing Contexts of Collaboration on Innovation other …

Industry Farms & Fishery

Figure 10. Collaborative environments for agri-food industry and rural areas

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 330 16 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

The new collaboration spaces should support new To achieve such new Collaborative Environments ways of collaboration among dynamic groups in in the agri-food industry and rural domains, the industry, both within an extended enterprise (EE) following RTD objectives have to be addressed and among organised groups in an EE, and differ- following a concept presented in the next Figure ent wider communities (outside an EE), specifi- (Figure 11). cally within the rural domain. For the agri-food industry, perhaps more than for any other industrial sector, it is of key importance to ensure effective collaboration among different groups and wider communities, including consumers and their suppliers. This research initiative will explore new ways of effectively supporting collaboration among (industrial) teams within vertical communities (‘From Fork to Farm’ chains) and wider horizontal communities (e.g. design teams and their customers, groups in rural domains – rural virtual communities, cross-sectoral design teams and wider RTD communities, industrial teams and their retired members etc.) on innovation, taking into account security, legislative, IPR

and other critical aspects. Figure 11 CWE concept New Collaborative environments can be seen as a tool to radically enhance capabilities of rural inhabitants leading to an improved quality of life A key objective identified in this RTD Programme and a revalorization of rural settings. is the development of activity-oriented collabo- The most challenging tasks are to provide Col- ration services. laborative (Working) Environments (CWEs) for rural domains. Such environments will support Services supporting collaboration among differ- creation of rural virtual communities and of a more ent teams in the agri-food industry and rural collaborative spirit in the rural domain (which in areas aiming to address dynamics among groups turn may have a high impact upon the agri-food (specifically addressing SMEs which are the domi- industry). Specifically, the new Collaborative Envi- nant organisation type in the food sector). ronments should support collaboration between Especially challenging tasks are services for col- inhabitants (and SMEs) in the rural domain, and laboration within ad-hoc groups in the rural do- regional authorities, on different aspects (e.g. main, taking into account differences in expertise legislation aspects, health issues etc.). and specific collaboration patterns in the rural The new proposed collaborative spaces in the domain, as well as among organised teams in the agri-food industry and rural domains must be agri-food industry and open communities. There is based upon open architectures, including a num- work to be done on definition of best practice col- ber of services to support collaboration amongst laboration patterns in the European agri-food in- the organised and ad-hoc groups and wider com- dustry and rural domain. munities, with the emphasis on supporting collec- Pro-active, culturally aware services allowing tive creativity in solving problems and generating access to virtualized resources and knowledge to new ideas. support creativity by involving teams within geo- This means RTD activities on high-level middle- graphically distributed Extended Enterprises (EE) ware systems leading to e-collaboration (so-called and rural communities in generation of new e-collaboration ‘upperware’) – i.e. a framework to ideas on agri-food products and processes and build collaboration middleware on a higher level of solving complex problems. Specifically to address: abstraction (see Figure 10). Rural cultural aspects, specific ways to collect In general it can be stated that the conditions of and work on ideas for agri-food products and agri- working and non-working environments in the agricultural processes. This new form of interactivity food sector and rural areas impose many specific allows businesses to brainstorm with a wide net- requirements on Collaborative Working Environ- work of potential problem solvers. ments technology in terms of decentralisation, en- The development of collaborative services vironmental conditions, user experience, collabo- specific to rural domain on legislative aspects, ration patterns (e.g. frequency, timing aspects health, and learning has been settled as a key such as asynchronous or synchronous collabora- issue in the scope of this RTD Programme. tion), and heterogeneity of CWE users (e.g. from farmers to large food industry) etc.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 331 17 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Issues being addressed: Integration and orchestration among services re- • Culturally aware, context- and content- quires RTD on semantic integration of the collabo- sensitive services to support collaboration be- ration activities, including semantic compatibility tween citizens, industry and the public domain. for information and services, as well as ontologies for collaboration. It will require ontologies support- • Services supporting distributed management ing collaboration in rural domains among teams and reasoning on context knowledge. with different expertise . • Specific collaborative services to support col- This objective could be seen as part of RTD 2.4: laboration among SMEs and rural inhabitants innovative models for virtualisation of agri-food with the local authorities on legislative and products and processes. health aspects. Security and IPR issues in collaboration consti- • Specific collaborative eLearning services for tute the final key objective. rural inhabitants. Security and IPR (protection of knowledge) as- • Rural cultural aspects. pects of new collaboration environments in industry, taking into account e.g. access capabilities in Another key issue which has been established as industrial companies etc., are obviously at the top an objective in this RTD domain is research in in- of the agenda. novative models for virtualisation of agri-food products and processes. In order to provide ap- In addition to the RTD activities, a more horizontal propriate access to product/process and other action on Experience Research already taken up data for effective collaboration among different for an early user involvement has to be continued. teams (e.g. shop-floor and products/process de- There is no ICT area which more requires deep sign teams), the middleware layer currently avail- involvement of end users in RTD than the devel- able in industry has to be radically extended and opment of new Collaborative Environments. must include powerful virtualisation (production The aspect to be considered is an effective in- processes and products). The main RTD chal- volvement of both industrial teams and wider rural lenge is a provision of technology for such radical communities in experience research. virtualisation, which includes solving many com- The figure below (Figure 12) shows that the high- plex problems such as definition of virtual models est relevance and priority was given to Objective of different products and processes in the agri- RTD 2.1 and 2.2, indicating clear need for collabo- food industry and rural domains needed for col- ration services specific to the agri-food and rural laborative work. domains, aiming at integrating vertical and hori- Specifically, this virtualisation will help SMEs to zontal communities in these domains, with key migrate from (often) pure material-driven proc- objectives to integrate rural food production with esses (especially in agriculture) to more informa- other parts of the economy. tion-driven processes. Lower priority is given to objectives RTD 2.3. – 2.6 The integration and orchestration among ser- since these objectives could be seen as more vices has been also identified as a key RTD objec- general aspects which could be addressed within

tive. a cross-domain RTD approach. Relevance

highly relevant

1 Ranking 2 3 4 of Relevance relevant 5 6

partly relevant

not relevant

1: Activity oriented 2: Services 3: Virtualisation 4: Architectural 5: Integration 6: Security & collaboration on legislating, of products aspects & orchestration IPR issues Objective services health & learning & processes

on short term

Ranking of on medium term 1 2 3 4 time horizon 5 6 for realisation

on long term

Priority

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 332 18 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Research topics will include Horizontal Communities for Rural Areas Integration of Vertical and Horizontal Communi- • Context-sensitive collaboration services for ties: rural domains. • Activity oriented Services for collaboration • Proactive services to support creativity in rural among teams in the agri-food industry and areas. (ad-hoc) groups in rural areas. • ‘Farm-to-Fork’ virtualisation: by virtual models and the ‘internet of Things’ for agri-food industry and rural areas

• Open reference architecture for collaborative working in agri-food and rural domains. • Adaptation of available security models to the agri-food and rural domains.

RTD 3: ICT for Managing Natural Resources & Rural Development

RTD 1: Consumer RTD 2: Traceability Collaborative of Agri-food Retailer Working RTD 3: ICT as key enabler to support innovation and sustainable de- Products & Environments Services Industry for Agri-food and Rural (Fork2Farm) Farms & Fishery Areas velopment in rural areas creating value for citizens and businesses

RTD 4: Innovative ICT using Broadband Infrastructure

Rural areas are characterised by a very large di- achieving sustainable development in rural areas. versity of situations, ranging from remote rural ar- Among other key measures, the development of eas suffering from depopulation and decline to new business activities to diversify the rural econ- peri-urban areas under increasing pressure from omy, the increase of local services offered in those urban centres. These diverse rural areas are at areas and the promotion of environmentally present facing particular challenges as regards friendly production processes are of special rele- growth, jobs and sustainability which need to be vance. This relevance has been contrasted solved to keep all the values and richness of this through the validation activities performed within European model. In addition to these challenges, the scope of AMI@Netfood project. rural areas should deal with terms such as envi- Feedback received indicates that 88% of the re- ronment, food safety, sustainable production and spondents rated this RTD as being of high to me- climate change prevention that have become es- dium relevance (see Figure 13). sential in modern European society. The feedback collected from participants in The increasing concern about rural development AMI@Netfood validation activities has defined the has brought the issue of ICTs and rural domains wide implementation of ICT solutions and applica- to the top of the European Commission policy tions in rural areas as the path to follow to build a agenda. As an example, DG Agriculture and Rural new rural Europe based on sustainable develop- Development define as the main goal for financial ment and rural participation in the knowledge soci- period 2007 – 2013 encouraging the take-up and ety, as a medium-term priority. diffusion of ICT 4.

In this sense, ICTs play an essential role in the implementation of measures that contribute to

4 Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on Community strategic guidelines for Rural Development (Programming period 2007–2013)

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 333 19 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

This objective involves actions oriented to improv- Relevance (%) RTD 3 ing not only the quality of life of inhabitants in rural areas, but also to supporting measures to fix and 46,1% 50,0% 41,9% to increase the population in those areas. During 40,0% validation activities, feedback collected has shown 30,0% the necessity of increasing the services offered in 20,0% 10,8% rural areas. 10,0% 1,2% Services such as eGovernment, Teleworking or 0,0% Low L - Medium H - Medium High eCommerce are essential in order to provide the same services to rural areas that are available in Figure 13 Relevance RTD3 metropolitan areas. In this objective, there are two main issues which ICT-based solutions can increase the competitive- can be considered as key points: Development of ness of the agri-food industry, mainly small farms specific software and applications for training, and SMEs located in rural areas, but also should which include specific rural eContent, and the also highly encourage certain activities which in- wide adoption of ICT to widespread eHealth appli- crease the attractiveness of rural areas for young cations in rural areas. generations. The development proposed in this RTD programme identifies three main objectives, which would facilitate the sustainable development of rural areas, as well as the integration of the Infor- mation Society into rural locations. The first objective addressed in this RTD programme is oriented to the deployment of ICT applications and tools to support a sustainable management of natural resources. The development of rural areas cannot be separated from the issue of natural resource conservation. In this aspect, ICTs are critical in order to provide tools and applications which support the management of natural resources and the application of environmentally-friendly production processes. The application of an The use of Digital Terrestrial Television as a appropriate manage- friendly interface can be considered the tool to ment system assures the introduce the key points mentioned above into conservation, in quality rural communities. and quantity, of the natu- The third objective defined and validated in this ral resources available. RTD programme is to achieve a setting up of new The support of ICT is business models in rural areas by means a essential to collect the development of specific ICTs, which fulfil sec- information required, to toral- specific needs. process it and to help in The diversification of rural economic activities, the decision-making processes that will con- supported by ICT and encouraging new business tribute to the adequate models such as ‘Rural Entertainment Activities’ or eBusinesses, will perfectly complement the tradi- management of agricul- tional rural economy. tural, forest and other natural resources. This objective is oriented to certain issues such us natural The specific ICT developments will promote as- forest control or water-cycle management, as well pects like telework, CWE or networking platforms, as supplying Technology to support lean environ- and will adapt innovative production processes to mental risk assessment and management of Natu- rural activities. ral Disasters, among others. There is a horizontal measure which could be con- The promotion of ICT in rural areas to develop sidered as a key action in this RTD programme. In specific applications to improve quality of life this RTD programme a risk analysis will be neces- of rural inhabitants has been identified as the sary, and a potential impact assessment to as- second main objective of this research initiative. sess the impact of the dissemination of the proposed ICT on the life of the rural population.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 334 20 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Rural development sectors, and the main rural Research topics will include: economic activity, the agri-food industry, must

seize the opportunities offered by new approaches, technologies and innovation to meet Rural Living evolving market demand both in Europe and globally. Above all, investment in the key resource of • Technologies that will improve the level of human capital will allow rural areas and the agri- interaction and collaboration between inhabi- food sector to look to the future with confidence. tants in a rural setting AMI@Netfood validation activity has shown that • Technologies that will specifically improve the agri-food and rural development stakeholders con- quality of life in a particular region. sider as important measures the three objectives • New business models to support rural busi- addressed in this RTD domain. ness. In addition to the objectives set up in this RTD pro- • Technologies that will support sustainable gramme, due to the importance of sustainable de- management and sustainable environmental velopment for rural areas, the timeline for attain- resources. ment of the objectives defined in this section should be medium term. This means that programmes such as Leader, Framework VII Pro- gramme (FP) or the Competitiveness and Innova- Rural Optimisation Applications tion Programme (CIP) might incorporate actions • Support small business in the rural area which support initiatives oriented to achieving the goals defined here. • Aid governments through eGovernment initiatives to improve the level of collaboration between citizens and governments.

ICT New business opportunities New services

Challenges growth, jobs and sustainability applicationsICT

Rural Areas

Environment protection, food safety, sustainable

ICT ICT infrastructure production and climate change prevention New Scopes ICT New management systems

Figure 14 RTD3 context

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 335 21 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

RTD 3: ICT for Managing Natural Resources & Rural Development

RTD 1: Consumer RTD 2: Traceability Collaborative of Agri-food Retailer Working Products & Environments RTD 4: Innovative ICT applications in rural areas using broadband Services Industry for Agri-food and Rural (Fork2Farm) Farms & Fishery Areas infrastructure

RTD 4: Innovative ICT using Broadband Infrastructure

The aim of this RTD Programme is to introduce Other technologies include Satellite broadband action lines in future EU initiatives supporting re- systems which offer a flexible complement with search and development on new and cheaper very wide geographical coverage to ensure broad- broadband access technologies and the invest- band access to all parts of a country, including the ment in cheaper broadband access technologies most isolated rural communities. that facilitate ubiquity, mobility and the capacity An important area of research as part of this RTD required to support intensive bandwidth applica- Programme is socio-economic research on as- tions which will minimize the risk of the rural digital pects of rural IT implementation oriented to in- divide in the long-term. Rural areas need comparable information technology, telecommunications and broadcasting infrastructures to urban centres if they are to compete for jobs and develop a more balanced economic activity with diversity of employment. The real threat is that rural areas will increasingly lag behind urban areas, if the appropriate steps are not taken. Broadband-enabling ICT systems will tend to concentrate in cities and core regions, and opportunities for rural revitalisation through the use of these technologies will continue at a slow pace. Although the EU initiative to promote broadband crease the impact of IST on the life of rural dwell- rollout to rural areas has been in place for some ers and to examine the possible impacts of ISL on years now and has had considerable impact this the social and economic contexts of rural regions. will still be a particular problem for the new en- trants to the EU where this technology would en- Supported by the research in ESA projects and the study of needs in rural regions provided by able rural areas to compete effectively with urban 5 areas. Achieving economies of scale and deliver- NaturNet Redime project , the RTD agenda of ing standardized solutions will lower the invest- AMI@Netfood identifies the necessity of a spatial ments required to provide broadband services to effort to build innovative services for rural regions rural areas. which should be focused on the development of middleware supporting rural IT deployment. The RTD Programme identifies as a priority objective the development of inexpensive IT infra- Finally, a multi-modal, multi-lingual platform structure and take up mechanisms; WIFI is a application and technology development em- very good example ploying information society technologies has been of a technology that identified as an RTD objective to ensure fast is valid for the provi- learning and easy deployment and uptake of the sion of broadband technologies. services in urban On examining the feedback from the validation areas (including hot activities, responses from the key stakeholders spots such as air- identify an overall high-medium rating regarding ports and convention the developments proposed in this category. centres) as well as This would strongly indicate a high relevance for in villages and iso- the activities proposed, however the ratings have lated rural locations. also identified that many of these developments Such broadband have been rated as medium term priority (see Fig- technologies which ure 15). could be addressed include WIMAX.

5 www.naturnet.org

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 336 22 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Research topics will include: Priority (%) RTD 4

35,0% 31,1% 31,1% 27,5% 30,0% Technology Infrastructure 25,0% 20,0% • Technologies that will improve the level of 15,0% 10,2% knowledge and skills in the rural domain 10,0% 5,0% • Technology that will improve the level of ser- 0,0% vice provided in the area of eHealth, eGov- Short S - Medium M - Long Long ernment and eLearning for the rural domain.

Figure 15 RTD4 Priority • Technologies that will improve the level of business-to-business and business-to- With the RTD objectives proposed, further applica- consumer in the agri-food domain. tion in the following areas could be realised: • Technologies that will realise the advantages • eHealth of technology in the rural domain through the use of broadband technologies. eHealth was recognised as one of a series of socio economic factors and issues impacting • Mobile technologies to improve the level of on the deployment of broadband. Remote de- application deployment in all aspects of the livery or use of ICT in delivery of health care agricultural and rural working environment. can facilitate the provision of new services for

rural residents. • eLearning Technology Transfer eLearning and its delivery through broadband • Technologies to support multi-modal and would appear to offer an opportunity to re- multi-lingual interfaces would also be pro- vitalise rural areas, enabling rural renewal, vided. both social and economic. eLearning offers the potential for new types of knowledge • Middleware technologies to be developed to based local employment. This appears to be enable the realisation of technology in the critical with the decline of traditional farming rural setting. and the need for re-skilling of local residents. • New working environments Starting initiatives to create local SME networks or associations of farmers in order to collaborate on new business activities, to exploit the existing opportunities, to influence local/regional decision makers, and to share knowledge and ideas. • eBusinesses In Internet-driven global economy, the market advantage goes to those who ensure that their businesses and the data driving them are more accessible than their competitors’. There are business services connected with

broadband and Internet, that apply to agriculture: e-commerce, B2B (Business-to- Business), B2C (Business-to-Consumer), C2C (Consumer-to-Consumer) and CRM (Customer Relationship Management). There is much optimism about the potential success of e-commerce in agriculture. • Other potential applications: Entertainment, eGovernment, Mobility, among others.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 337 23 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

5. Horizontal Activities

On the one hand, legislation and standardisation belling, packaging or documentation. Since explicit are imposing constraints on the business environ- forms, for example for labelling, are required, fu- ment – often rated negatively and especially by ture RTD activities need to analyse how to realise those actors whose profit margin is reduced. On new CWE solutions, without contravening those the other hand, they are offering guiding princi- regulations. ples, best practices, industrial agreements and Moreover, actors from the agri-food industry, con- quality definitions facilitating collaboration, interac- sumers and policy makers need to come together tion and interoperability within the business envi- to generate mutual understanding and improve- ronment – affecting both processes and products ments of future regulations. – while also enabling businesses to reduce costs, Food legislation imposes diverse requirements optimise time and increase quality, as well as pro- for consumer protection, asking, for example, tecting consumers. This is especially true for the for traceability or healthy ingredients. Those regu- networked agri-food sector and new technologies, lations already apply to adoption of new technolo- offering diverse improvement potentials. gies. Future RTD activities shall especially try to From the RTD point of view, it is obvious that find new solutions, which may minimise additional analysis, specification and development of high- efforts and costs within the supply chain, due to potential technologies are realised in a laboratory such legislation. environment – an ideal world – enabling identifica- There is still a very large potential to improve the tion of next-generation solutions. But the commer- convenience of interaction of public administration cialisation of those potentials needs to take ac- with citizens and companies. Many new services count of legislation and standardisation and will and new forms of democratic participation can be require additional RTD efforts to comply with it. developed with e-government programs. The analysis of legislation and standardisation Improved integration between different govern- aspects concerning CWE technologies and agri- ment agencies and between central and local ad- food will therefore focus on both possible con- ministration should be realized to provide seam- straints and potential promoters of ICT adoption in less interactions with society. Future e- the agri-food sector, and could identify the follow- government challenges include the delivery of ing RTD aspects to be taken into account in future more and better services at lower cost. activities addressing the AMI@Netfood domain. The agri-food sector has specific and demanding Realisation of ICT-based solutions specifically in- requirements of interaction with public administra- volves the explicit and implicit acquisition of infor- tion, governing and regulatory bodies to meet mation and knowledge. It combines intelligent and regulations on food safety and quality, traceability, autonomous software functionality as well as product certification, origin denomination, etc. agents with rapidly extended knowledge bases. Farmers, food producers and distributors need to This opens new opportunities/threats for e.g. interact with government departments at different monitoring of employees, acquisition of consumer levels and/or with regulatory entities, sometimes data or exchange of data within the extended en- through heavy and bureaucratic processes. terprise. However, legislation defines quite narrow possibilities and definitely constrains the realisa- New applications need to be developed, aiming at tion of such solutions, whether such opportunities reducing the time and the cost (on both sides: are actively envisaged or only theoretically avail- government and companies) necessary to meet able. the required high level of interaction and complex administrative processes. RTD activities need to address such issues, finding new approaches to enable an explicit limitation Through the effective use of innovative tools it will and customisation of ICT (specifically AMI) solu- be possible to develop agile processes and to tions to comply with legislation for data protec- transform the way governments and regulatory tion and privacy. An important issue is solving bodies interact with the agri-food community. the problem of access by the private sector to It is important to harmonise governmental services public data (it is not necessary to offer this infor- and obligations between different public authori- mation free of charge, but it is necessary to define ties and also between public authorities and the clear rules for use). business sector. Food-specific legislation regulates legal require- For many SMEs and farmers, it is important to be ments re specific product groups like e.g. meat, able to use front-end applications, which will en- cheese, milk or frozen food. This branch of legisla- able communication with all governmental and tion defines specific requirements concerning la- business applications.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 338 24 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

In this area, specific horizontal tasks need to be Moreover it was underlined that higher levels of developed in close cooperation with governments education and training are crucial for a broader and regulatory bodies to address the following and better use of ICT. objectives: These issues are clearly addressed by the Strate- • provide efficient access to credible, ac- gic Research Agenda through the horizontal curate and updated information to the measures concerned with training of the rural professionals involved in the agri-food population, as a way to promote the adoption of community new technologies and to disseminate ICT. • deliver an integrated set of e-services Training and dissemination activities should be for producers, supporting efficiently particularly directed at the rural population and processes like production quotas man- SMEs, ensuring that developments in RTD will be agement, production reporting, inven- effectively accessed by this sector. tory management, certification informa- Improvements in communication, technology tion, geographical statistics for territorial transfer and networking, taking advantage of new marketing and rural development, etc. technologies and management practices, will be of In this respect a number of areas have been pro- enormous importance in developing durable co- posed to the key stakeholders namely: operation between enterprises, and also across food process chains (including the consumer). • ICT take-up Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in • Technology transfer and pilots the long and medium term, are central to job creation and economic growth in the European • International Cooperation agri-food industry and will be crucial for its future • Standardisation of activities success; they represent a key component of both the innovation system and the chain that trans- • Rural Living Labs forms knowledge into new food products and processes. From the analysis of the results it was found that Strategies for improving the communication and the key horizontal activities have had high rele- understanding of RTD know-how and implement- vance to meeting the future needs of the agri-food ing processes for proactive technology transfer domain. should be developed, delivered and disseminated. The priority accorded to these by the stakeholders varied, with ICT take-up and Technology transfer rated as more short-term priorities, and Standardi- sation activities and rural living labs more long- term. These responses highlight the importance of providing efficient electronic services to support the interaction between individuals and companies and the administration and regulatory bodies.

As an example, most farming activities have to apply for subsidies, with complex administrative processes. In some cases, for small companies the actual process of applying for the subsidy is more expensive than the amount they can receive.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 339 25 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

6. Conclusions

This document provides an overview of the main In order to meet these challenges a number of results obtained in the AMI@Netfood project. This RTD areas were identified and drawn up. project aimed to identify the key challenges The key RTD areas consist of: with respect to the application of Information

and Communication Technologies to the agri- food and rural development domains. • RTD 1: ICT applications for the complete traceability of products and services throughout a Based on these results, a number of RTD pro- networked value chain. posal areas were drawn up and a set of proposed • RTD 2: CWE. Collaborative working environ- horizontal activities were identified. As a result ments for Innovation in agri-food industry and of this work, a draft of the Strategic Research rural domain. Agenda was developed and a wide range of vali- • RTD 3: ICT as key enabler to support innova- dation activities were conducted in order to vali- tion and sustainable development in rural areas date the work carried out. creating value for citizens and businesses

After consultation and validation, the key chal- • RTD 4: Innovative ICT applications in rural ar- lenges identified are: eas using broadband infrastructure.

• Challenge 1. Support the European Agri-food Once these priority RTD areas were formulated, a industry, especially SMEs, to be the worldwide series of workshops were held throughout Europe leader in the supply of safe food products that in order to assess the relevance of each challenge promote public health and quality of life of con- and RTD. The results have shown a high correla- sumers. tion between SRA proposals and key stake- • Challenge 2. Increase the level of involvement holders’ feedback concerning their requirements. of consumers in the agri-food value chain by means of the wide adoption of relevant IC Tech- nologies and applications. • Challenge 3. Increase the areas in which Euro- pean citizens find collaborative working environments assisted by ICTs. Extend collaborative ICTs to the agri-food industry and rural domain and increase the skills of rural inhabitants to enable them to reap the benefit of new technologies. • Challenge 4. Expand opportunities to increase competitiveness for the European ICT industry by developing applications and tools to support the European agri-food and rural sectors. Furthermore, a number of horizontal activities • Challenge 5. Push forward investment in ICT were also presented with a high level of relevance and telecommunications infrastructure by creat- for these activities. ing new business models in rural areas. The analysis of key stakeholder feedback indi- • Challenge 6. Make Rural Europe a more attrac- cates that most of the activities and challenges tive place in which to live, invest and work, pro- proposed have been prioritised for the long to moting knowledge and innovation for growth medium term. and creating more and better jobs. With these results it can be stated that there is a

clear need for further research in IST, and more specifically for the creation of a collaborative working environment in order to support and sustain the future of the agri-food sector, as well as realising the full potential that the rural domain in

Europe has to offer.

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 340 26 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Acknowledgements

The AMI@Netfood European Strategic Research Agenda has been developed thanks to the active contribution of more than 250 experts belonging to 200 organisations. Without their participation, the task would have been impossible to accomplish successfully. AMI@Netfood consortium wishes here to thank all the organisations involved in the whole process.

Abatec Electronic AG; Austria Employment and Economic Development Centre-Pirkanmaa; Finland Backaldrin Österreich GmbH, Austria Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation; Finland BÄKO-ÖSTERREICH Großeinkauf der Bäcker u. Konditoren reg. Finpro ry; Finland GenmbH, Austria GS1-Finland; Finland BELAN Ziviltechnicker GmbH, Austria Helsinki School of Economics; Finland Caj. Strobl Naturmühle GmbH, Austria Imprescon Partners; Finland Delacon Biotechnik GmbH; Austria InnoLiito konseptitoimisto/concept studio; Finland Esca Food Solutions GmbH; Austria Intentia; Finland Food Testing Institute & Food Research Institute (LVA Jyväskylä Polytechnic/Elintarvikealan osaamiskeskus ELO; Finland Lebensmittelversuchsanstalt), Austria Lawson/Intentia; Finland Hütthaler KG, Austria MI tietorakenteet ltd; Finland Salinen Austria AG, Austria Mikkeli Polytechnic; Finland Solan-Kraftfutterwerk Schmalwieser GmbH & CoKG, Austria Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; Finland Upper Austrian Food Cluster; Austria Mi-tietorakenteet Oy; Finland Upper Austrian Gov., Dept. “Genussland Oberösterreich”, Austria MTT Vakola, Agrifood Research Finland; Finland Upper Austrian Chamber of Agriculture, Austria National Food Agency Finland; Finland Upper Austrian Food Cluster (UAFC), Austria Pirkanmaa Polytechnic; Finland Upper Austrian Research GmbH; Austria Prizztech oy; Finland Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences Wels, Austria Proagria Ltd.; Finland AG pognik Hradec Králové; Czech Republic Sentera Oyj; Finland Agrarien Chamber of Olomouc Region; Czech Republic Technical Research Centre of Finland; Finland Agriculture Research Institute Kromeriy, Ltd; Czech Republic TietoEnator; Finland Agrpodnik Hradec Kralove; Czech Republic University of Helsinki; Finland CCSS; Czech Republic University of Tampere; Finland Česká Zemědělská Universita V Praze Czech Republic University of Turku; Finland Crop Associations of SMEs in Agriculture Czech Republic WM-data Ltd; Finland Cross Czech a.s.; Czech Republic YTI- Research center; Finland Czech Agrarien Chamber CR,; Czech Republic Ball Packaging Europe, Germany Czech University of Life Science in Prague; Czech Republic BIBA Bremen Institute of Industrial Technology and Applied Work Department Machinery –CZU Prague; Czech Republic Science, Germany Department of Crop production-MZLU Brno; Czech Republic Bremen Innovation Agency, Germany Department of Forestry; Czech Republic Bremen Ministry for Economy and Harbours, Germany Department of Informatic –CZU Prague; Czech Republic Bremen Ministry for Research and Education, Germany Forest management Institute (FMI); Czech Republic Centre for Food Chain and Network Research, Germany HELP SERVICE - REMOTE SENSING spol. s.r.o; Czech Republic Diageo Deutschland, Germany HelpService RS; Czech Republic Die Denkfabrik, Germany ICT Consulting, s.r.o.; Czech Republic DLR-Cologne, Germany Institute of Agriculture and Food Information; Czech Republic German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Germany KAPOS Prague; Czech Republic infoconsult GmbH, Germany Lesprojekt sluzby; Czech Republic intelligent indexing, Germany Mendelova zemědělská a lesnická univerzita v Brně; Czech Republic Mobile Research Center Bremen, Germany Mespol Medlov a.s.; Czech Republic PRO DV Software AG, Germany MJM Litovel a.s.; Czech Republic Regional Government of Bremen – Senate of Science and Education, Okresni Agrarni komora Olomouc; Czech Republic Germany Olomoucký kraj- Odbor životního prostředí; Czech Republic Technologiezentrum Informatik, Germany Research Institute Agricultural Economics Prague ; Czech Republic Technology Agent of the State of Bremen, Germany Research institute of Crop Production; Czech Republic ttz Bremerhaven, Germany Research institute of Geografic and maps; Czech Republic Agricultural University of Athens; Greece The Forest Management Institute (FMI); Czech Republic Athens University of Economics and Business; Greece The Regional Authority of the Olomouc Region; Czech Republic GS1 Hellas (standardisation group); Greece UHUL Brandys nad Labem; Czech Republic Ministry of Economics; Greece VUKROM; Czech Republic Ministry of Education; Greece ZD Senice na Hane; Czech Republic University of Aegean; Greece Agrifood Research Finland; Finland Agrárgazdasági Kutató Intézet; Hungary Agropolis Oy; Finland Agrárkamara; Hungary Arktiset Aromit ry - Arctic Flavours ; Finland Agrárlogisztikai Intézet; Hungary

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 341 27 Vision for the European Strategic Research Agenda for the year 2015

Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem; Hungary Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica; Portugal DE Médiacentrum; Hungary Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvol. Regional do Norte; Portugal Debreceni Egyetem ATC AVK; Hungary Confederação Nacional da Agricultura; Portugal EU IST Pro; Hungary Dalavra – Sociedade de Produtos Alimentares S.A.; Portugal FÖMI; Hungary Direcção Regional de Agricultura de Entre Douro e Minho; Portugal FVM FTF; Hungary Enabler - Solutions for Retailing; Portugal FVM Mezogazdasági Gépesítési Intézet; Hungary Escola Superior Biotecnologia, Univ. Católica do Porto; Portugal HUNAGI; Hungary INEGI; Portugal Hungarica-European Project Coordination; Hungary Instituto Politécnico de Bragança; Portugal Inter Európa Bank; Hungary Lavradores de Feitoria, Vinhos de Quinta, SA; Portugal MAGISZ/HAAI; Hungary Agriculture anf Food Industry Union; Spain Magyar Térinformatikai Társaság; Hungary Albacete Scientific Park; Spain Sisco Kft.; Hungary Asociación para el desarrollo rural de La Rioja Suroriental; Spain Szám és Muszak Bt.; Hungary Bodegas Félix Solis; Spain Szegedi Tudományegyetem; Hungary Castilla La Mancha ICT industry Association; Spain Veszprémi Egyetem; Hungary CECU; Spain Applicon Ltd.; Iceland CEDERCAM; Spain Federation of Icelandic Industries; Iceland COAG; Spain Icetech/Matra; Iceland Escuela Politécnica Superior de Albacete; Spain Klak Ltd.; Iceland Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos; Spain Marel Ltd.; Iceland FEDETICAM; Spain Research Council of Iceland; Iceland FEDICAM; Spain Reykjavik University; Iceland Garcia Baquero; Spain The Icelandic Research Centre; Iceland INDAISA; Spain Cambells Catering, Ireland Instituto de Desarrollo Regional; Spain DERI, NUI Galway. Ireland Instituto de Investigación Informática (I3A); Spain FSA, Ireland Castilla - La Mancha. Consejería Agricultura; Spain National Microelectronics application Centre; Ireland Castilla - La Mancha. Consejería de Industria y Tecnología; Spain Udaras na Gaeltachta, Ireland Castilla - La Mancha. Consejería de Educación y Ciencia, Viceconse- Western Brand, Ireland jería de Investigación, Universidades e Innovación, Spain AUSL MODENA; Italy Castilla – La Mancha. Consejería de Medioambiente; Spain CNA; Italy TELECOM CLM; Spain CRPA; Italy Tello; Spain GENEFAST; Italy UCAMAN; Spain MOROTTI CELESTINO SNC; Italy Unión de Pequeños Agricultores; Spain Panificio Lusignani; Italy Universidad de Alcalá de Henares; Spain PROMO - Promuovere Modana; Italy Universidad de Castilla - La Mancha; Spain Richeldi Spa; Italy USC; Spain Salumificio Valtiepido; Italy Unilever, The Netherlands Alima-Gerber SA; Poland Anadolu Üniversitesi Eczacilik Fakültesi; Turkey Apollo Sp. Z o.o. w Rzeszowie, Poland Bagcilik Arastirma Ensitüsü müdürlügü; Turkey Asseco Poland SA, Poland Bursa Ticaret ve Sanayi Odasi; Turkey Bank Ochrony Środowiska, Poland Doga Bitkisel Ürünler San. ve Tic. AS; Turkey Bank Spóldzielczy w Rzeszowie; Poland Eskisehir Sanayi Odasi; Turkey Browar Van PurSp. z o.o., Poland ISTANBUL SANAYI ODASI; Turkey Cukrownia Ropczyce S.A, Poland Istanbul Ticaret Odasi; Turkey Eko-Smak Górno, Poland Istanbul Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi; Turkey Federacja Konsumentów - Klub w Rzeszowie; Poland ITU Gida Müh. Bölümü; Turkey Okregowe Przedsiebiorstwo Geodezyjno-Kartograficzne SA; Poland Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlügü; Turkey Państwowa Inspekcja Sanitarna, Poland Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Arastirma Enstitüsü Müdürlügü; Turkey Politechnika Rzeszowska, Poland Tekel A.S.; Turkey Przedsiębiorstwo Geodezyjne-Kartograficzne OPGK, Poland Tekel Sigara Pazarlama Ve Dagitim AS; Turkey Rzeszowska Spółdzielnia Mleczarska RESMLECZ, Poland Tekel Yaprak Tütün Isletmeleri; Turkey Starostwo Powiatowe w Gorlicach; Poland TUBITAK MAM Gida Enstitüsü; Turkey Uniwersytet Rzeszowski; Poland Tüm Gida Dis Ticaret Dernegi; Turkey Wojewódzki Urząd Statystyczny Rzeszów, Poland Türk Standartlari Enstitüsü; Turkey Agência de Desenvolvimento Regional do Vale do Ave; Portugal Turkiye Seker Fabrikalari A.S.; Turkey Assoc. Nacional de Criadores de Suínos da Raça Bísara; Portugal Zeytincilik Arastirma Enstitüsü; Turkey

AMI@Netfood Strategic Research Agenda 342 28 FROM CRISIS MANAGEMENT TO CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE CASE STUDY OF EHI

Introduction

From the very outset, the EHI Retail Institute had to deal with crisis management. The roots of the EHI go back to 1951 when it was founded by retailers/wholesalers to help solving the distribution disaster in post-war Germany, and since 1957 it faced the challenge to transform ‘Mum and Papa’ service-stores into modern supermarkets. The institute is committed to the idea of Applied Science: its central method is based on the screening of problems along the total supply chain, to create round-tables or focus groups to elicit the reasons for these problems, to structure the input of the operative staff of companies by academic competence, to support solutions by field-studies, to discuss the results first in the workshops of the “round table” and then in public seminars, before, finally, penetrating those ideas via essays of sector-magazines or in special brochures of EHI.

EHI follows the inductive way of case-studies, never the deductive approach to survey academic literature to build some enlargement of theory. Nevertheless, EHI’s findings have been quoted often in academic papers as a source of knowledge.

Within this paper, the EHI activities with regard to coping with a food scandal are mirrored. Twenty-five years ago, food-scandals like manipulated wine from Austria or, fifteen years ago, the British Cow Disease (BSE), led in retail to heightened operative crisis-management to limit the slowdown of sales in the specific food-sector affected by the occurring problems. Within the total supply chain the players of each level, from agriculture to processing, packaging, wholesale distribution, logistics, and retail accepted their responsibility only in their respective field of competence rather than taking a supply chain wide perspective. The frame of business- operations was benchmarked only by legal demands or business-success/failure. In cases of misbehaviours punishment followed by government or by bankruptcy.

The EHI food-security-contributions since the first BSE-scandal in 1994 referred to:

aa) Creating in 1994 a round table for the Total Supply Chain of Cows/Beef.

ab) Briefing all stakeholders in 1995 on the new concept/philosophy of “responsibility of the total chain”, which obliged every member of the chain to exchange control data with all members of the chain.

ac) Establishing in 1996 Orgainvent (www.orgainvent.de) for the facultative tracing and

tracking of cows and beef as a counter-action to the second BSE-scandal. By forming this

joint venture with 50 percent shares for the agricultural and processing side and 50

percent shares for retail institutionalized tracing and tracking in this sector in Germany.

343 ad) Enforcing the facultative system by contracts accepting financial sanctions of a “sanction

committee”. Based on this pioneering work focussing on a system solution and its

dialogue with international partners, the EU, later, formed the obligatory EU-tracking

and tracing regulations.

ba) Confronting in 1995/96 the EHI round table for fruit and vegetables with food-security-

problems in agriculture.

bb) Transforming the national fruit and vegetable round table to a European one:

EUREPGAP, today GlobalGAP (www.globalgap.org), is a proactive measure to create

“Good Agricultural Practice” for European Retail Produce.

bc) Transforming that round table to a non-profit oriented company in its own right.

bd) To penetrate the standards of EUREGAP worldwide to more than 100 countries which

is mirrored by the change of the name form EUREPGAP to GlobalGAP.

While the case-studies of Orgainvent and GlobalGAP are very sector specific, EHI is now working on a “roof-brand” for those activities, which are much more complex and interdisciplinary. In 2008, the EHI Retail Institute initiated via its international academic network the European Retail Academy, an environmental virtual portal www.european-retail- academy.org/ERM, to publish in the internet best practice cases of retail in co-operation with its suppliers and to benchmark the activities in an Environmental Flow Chart, which can be used as well for the vertical flow from agriculture up to retail-communication for a live-style of health in sustainability (LOHAS) and horizontally to compare competitors of each level. It is an open and innovative system applying a systematic approach, which is derived from the Orgainvent and GlobalGAP experience. The aim is to place an environmental retail management (ERM-approach) as one potential benchmark to measure Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in retail in the future.

Methodology:

The main purpose of this paper is to provide a description of the way retailers create technical standards in workshops co-ordinated by EHI. This paper also intends to document that the results of the workshop in the specific field of food security, meanwhile, reached a strategic dimension linking the case of a crisis of cows /beef via the proactive activity for fruit and vegetables, finally, to the much bigger and complex topic of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Cross-Company Challenge

344 While, due to the EAN-barcode for fast moving consumer products, each article can be identified together with its producer since the middle of the 70ies of the last century, agriculture was lacking such systems. Up to the middle of the 90ies, meat, for example, was an anonymous product with no hint to the source of its origin

When, for the first time in 1994, TV-reports showed pictures from ill cows (British Cow Disease/BSE) and forecasted that thousands of dead consumers might be the result of the consumption of meat from those animals, in Germany, meat-sales declined by 25 to 30 percent. Consumers were afraid that the meat might come from the UK, and German retailers did not know if this could be the case, because the total supply chain of beef could consist of up to 15 companies involved during the birth, slaughtering, cutting and wholesale operations. Each stakeholder kept his source as a secret being afraid of competitors (Pretzel, 1995; Scheper, 1996; Möller, 1996). The EHI Retail Institute in Germany, therefore, created a Round Table as an expert group with all retailers and also with all suppliers from abroad – because EHI did not support an anti-British campaign (“Don’t Buy British”) (Hallier, 1995a; Hallier, 1995b Hallier, 1996; Hallier, 1997a; Möller, 1995; Bornemann, 1996; Atzberger, 1996).

At first in the Round Table the meat-buyers from the main players like Metro, Rewe, Kaufland, Lidl, Spar, Coop Deutschland, AVA discussed the problem to investigate, if an “EHI-draft” of a label for tracking/tracing could be accepted by all retailers especially under the aspect of different organizational structures (consumer-co-operation, retailer-co-operation, chain-stores, cash and carry). After the approval derived from three meetings, the decision was taken to discuss the “retail demand” for such a label internationally with national and international suppliers of beef. The international marketing organizations were AgrarMarkt/Austria, the Irish Food Board/Ireland , Vlam Belgium, Charoluxe/SOPEXA France, Vertey Vless/Netherlands and Kodbranchens/Denmark.

From a strategic viewpoint, it was important to integrate the international market-organizations at an earlier stage. From a tactical perspective, it also put some pressure on the German suppliers who were very reluctant to join the retailers’ tracking system for two reasons: first, they perceived a competitive advantage in times were German consumers were afraid to buy BSE-beef and started to campaign “Buy from German farms”; second, foreign suppliers promoted with “Charoluxe” some kind of “branded” products being proud of its origin, while the average German suppliers didn’t want to show the retailers the source of supply because they were feared that the German retailers could outplace them and order directly at the source.

Nevertheless, the German suppliers were also afraid that the German retailers could start a campaign for beef-tracking only with examples from abroad – and, therefore, joined the discussion as a third group.

Together with all stakeholders, a flow-chart was developed starting from the ‘parents’ of the calf through all potential steps of the total supply chain for beef.

Figure 1: Quality Assurance Chain for Cattle beef

345

346

Unanimously, retailers and suppliers agreed on the point that the roll-out of the system needed time and that it should start from the back-end: for example, the processing had to assure the day of slaughtering at a fixed dead-line. After a time-limit of another three months the slaughtering had to assure the source of the farms which had been delivering the cattle, another three months later the farms had to prove the place of birth of the cattle. Every three months another step toward transparency had been reached by this continuous procedure.

Figure 2: Sample for Tracement-Label

Parallel, the idea of the EHI-label was disseminated by essays in magazines, on seminars and conferences, by interviews in newspapers – also in bilateral talks between retailers with transport- business, producers of feedings and other stakeholders.

On the political side, EHI acted by printing a special brochure about the topic of tracing and tracking. It distributed 560 copies to all members of the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) and 100 copies each to all of the regional participants, involving consumer-organizations in discussions. Due to the national pressure but also initiatives of the French SOPEXA partners, VLAM Belgium and Kodbnrachens Denmark, on the international and EU-level, the German Federal Ministry of agricultural started to ear-mark the cows.

Institutionalized Tracking

In the second wave of the BSE-scandal in 1996 it became apparent that EHI had been accepted as the leading ‘think tank’, and if the national suppliers could not offer EHI-tracking/tracing as a standard, they would face the danger to be out of business. To calm down mistrust of the farmers in that, via the EHI-Label, there could be a shift of costs from retail to the farms only, EHI started, in 1997,

347 to institutionalize the system in form of a joint venture with the farmers: the company Orgainvent was created ( Hallier, 1997b; 1997c; 1997d; Möller, 1997a; 1997b; Juergens, 1997).

The company structure reflected the balance of power between retail and the total supply side of farming and slaughtering/processing. 50 percent of the board was appointed by EHI, 50 percent by the farmers and slaughters and processing-houses; the Managing Director of EHI became the chairman of the Board, the Managing Director of Orgainvent was appointed by the farmers and the German government appointed a deputy minister to the Board.

Within a rather short time period, Orgainvent became responsible for three quarters of the beef- industry in Germany, and, on the level of food-retail, more than two thirds of all the chains participated in the Orgainvent-system. Also, the European Commission reacted: they followed the EHI/Orgainvent systematic approach, stipulated by the EU Regulation 178/2002, demanding within the European Union a complete horizontal tracking and tracing of all cows/beef and feed-products from January 1st 2005 (Hallier, 1998b; Jürgens, 1998; Kempcke, 1998; Lambertz, 1998; Schneehagen, 1999; Roux, 1999) .

More and more the daily work changed from crisis-management to nutritional marketing and to gain social competence (Hallier, 2000a; 2000c). Partly, this could be engineered by the activities themselves, but, of course, also by an effective communication strategy. Between 1995 and 2005, EHI Retail Institute published seven special brochures about tracing/tracking and labelling (EHI, 1995; 1997; 2004; 2005). The focus on applied science compared to more traditional academic style of research can be seen in the amount of published articles in special magazines (ranking number 1) and EHI monographs compared to only four articles in readers between 2001 and 2008 (Byrne, in Hallier, 2001, Hallier, 2001, 2008).

Good Agricultural Practice

Having become more conscious about the risks at the farm level due to the Mad Cow Disease, EHI started in 1996 a global partnership for safe and sustainable agriculture.

International Challenge

While Orgainvent and the EU-Regulation have been a result of an actual crisis, the EHI-initiative for fruit and vegetable resulted from a proactive initiative.

The second point of difference is that, while in the case of BSE each nation had to react immediately with different approaches having been taken between 1994 and 1996 (the second peak of the crisis), now, in the case of produce there was not such a fact and time-pressure. The EHI Retail Institute could start an international Round Table for “European Retailers Produce Good Agricultural Practice” (EUREPGAP) to discuss and generate the vision of setting farm-assurance standards of a

348 global reach (Möller, 1997b; 1997c; 1998; 1999a). While in retail all the international fruit buying- departments were invited for the first focus-group, the supply-side referred to citrus related products only. The panel even concentrated at first on the two countries of Spain and Italy only. Here, the first tests for citrus-supply base were organized. Only after the successful implementation of a citrus- standard for those two countries, the number was enlarged by further countries and by a wider range of products. At this stage of a widened scope of operations, EHI realized that also other organizations were active in this field. Immediately, the task-force started the dialogue with other quality assurance initiatives including both, the level of Pre-Farm as well as Post-Farm Gate (Möller, 1999b; 2000a; 2000b). EUREPGAP decided not to compete with the other standards but to limit itself to the Pre-Farm Gate level as here EUREPGAP could gain its unique competitive position supporting also all activities of quality assurance initiatives at the Post-Farm Gate level. The interaction between the different QA initiatives had been visualised on a chart of Jürgen Matern, Metro, Germany during an EurepGAP- workshop, which is still used in many seminars (figure 3).

Figure 3: Interaction between different QA Initiatives

To be able to finance a control-system, worldwide synergy effects were taken into account. From the demand-size not only European retailers but also companies from Asia or the USA joined. Due to that fact “EUREPGAP” was re-labled to “GlobalGAP”(see Figure 4)

Figure 4: National Technical Working Groups GlobalGAP

349

Institutionalized Drivers

Similar to the approach applied when establishing Orgainvent, also in the case of the Good Agricultural Practice, the EHI Retail Institute a spin off of this workshop took place creating an independent company with the name of “FoodPlus” to give stakeholders from around the world the possibility to contribute and to share the impact onto the standards for fruit and vegetables democratically.

Figure 5: Independent Governance

350 Differently to the strategy and tactical steps of crisis-management in the meat-industry, the proactive activities of the fruit and vegetable EHI/GlobalGAP-team refer mainly to back-stage operations. No necessity was perceived to go public.

Environmental Retail Management

Having been involved via Orgainvent and FoodPlus in many conferences about “Green Marketing” in the beginning of this century, it suddenly became clear that due to the danger of the change of the world climate many EHI-pilot-activities, for example, from the 80ies like “optimizing packaging” now became “main-stream” thinking.

A virtual Network

Environmental aspects are too complex to be handled by one institute only even when acting as a co-ordinator. Furthermore, in many facets of this topic, like CO2-footprint or others, specialists have a higher reputation and budget at their disposal compared to the EHI. However, EHI was successful in positioning itself as a worldwide catalyst “for retail innovation” again. But also here again it is not yet clear how “environmental action” can be defined or measured and how far action A perhaps counteracts action B. For example: organic beef is claimed to be more environmental – but it needs additional space (up to 50 percent) for breeding. Another point of discussion would be action C (beef from Argentina) versus action D (for example beef locally sourced in Europe). There are pro and con from lots of controversial stakeholders – as well on the level of agriculture, on the level of processing, on the level of packaging, as on the level of logistics. Even many a definition claiming what is sustainable or what is environmental are not yet agreed on. Therefore, organizationally not a company, but a virtual network open for discussion for everybody was created to help to increase transparency about actions taken and to build bridges to interdisciplinary aspects.

Benchmark Flow Chart

To be able to monitor and to cluster activities of the Total Supply Chain, similarly to the flow-chart of tracking/tracing cows and beef, components like agriculture, processing, packaging, transport, depots/outlets, in-store technologies, or promotions were listed and published in a newly created Homepage www.european-retail-academy.org/ERM.

351 Having applied the method of a quantitative descriptive survey, a questionnaire was sent out first to 20 retailers with the demand to fill in that chart estimating in how far their total efforts for the environment (100 percent) could be split into the separate steps of the flow-chart. The first six returns were then again published on that Homepage. The publication of the results (without disclosing the companies) is one way to create awareness. Companies see the estimates from competitors and compare it with their own efforts. By this, reflection and the unlocking of creativity could be stimulated.

Figure 6: Environmental Flow Chart

Level % % % % % % Agriculture 30 - 25 5 17 - Processing/Packaging 20 25 10 15 13 - Building 10 - 15 35 20 50 (depots/outlets) Shop 20 - 15 5 21 40 fitting/processing POS/Advertising 10 25 20 5 16 5 Consumer Lifestyle 10 50 15 35 13 5 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

The intention is to enlarge the panel and to repeat the questions over the time period of several years. Readers of this paper are explicitly called and invited to participate in this survey. The first result of the awareness creating activity was a Round Table of EHI Retail Institute for energy saving measures to build retail outlets. EHI decided to speed-up the process by annual awards.

Corporate Social Responsibility

While tracing/tracking as well as good agricultural practice should be seen as the very basics of food-security and, therefore, remain out of the field of competition among retailers or wholesalers, the more complex Environmental Retail Management provides a strategic and tactical scope to look for best practices under a different focus. There might be communities created on bio-/organic food, others on fair-trade, some of regional sourcing and others of global sourcing reflecting different thinking of the consumers.

352 All could be measured/benchmarked by comparing the underlying philosophy with operative activities. The keyword is “Corporate Social Responsibility”.

There are at least three factors which have led to the situation of higher levels of awareness for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):

- The society is changing. Environment becomes a globally accepted topic.

- The sourcing of products has changed from local/regional partners to global partners.

- The size and professionalism of retail has changed.

The retailers, due to the size of their top-ranking players, their technology and the globalization of the big companies are able to be the driver for international standards from a technical and ethical viewpoint watched by the society which keeps an eye on the Corporate Social Responsibility of the big players.

Taken the size of retail-companies, the concentration within Western Europe but also in the US and Asia has reached tremendous dimensions. In Germany, for example, the Top 5 players in 1980 had an aggregate market-share of 26.3 percent. In the year 2010 this market share had risen to over 80 percent.

Figure 7: Market Concentration in Germany

To understand the retail business, one might compare the annual turnover of the US retailer WalMart with the GNP of Switzerland. They are both of the same size but WalMart’s turnover is growing quicker than the GNP of Switzerland. In the last years, top globalizing retailers had achieved double-digit-growth rates (Figure 8).

353

Figure 8: Growth rate (percentage) from 2003-2004)

Partly, this market domination derives from the power of technology used by the big players.

The increase of power of retail in relations to the suppliers can be seen by the chart “Power Chess- Board” (Hallier., 1995b; 1998a; 1999; Westerman, 1997) (Figure 9).

Figure 9: The Empowerment of Retail by Marketing-Tools

354

On the time-axis (t) in the 50ies /60ies of the 20th century, the branded goods industry was dominating the atomistic retail. In the 80ies, due to the increasing size of the demand side and the concentration of retail and national penetration or even internationalization, retailers reversed the trend and became the “rule-setters”. This trend was enhanced by the fall of the ‘Iron Curtain’, which supported the growth of the top retail players in the West which, in addition, acted as a technical driving force for the East (Huppert, 1997). An indicator for the power of international retailers penetrating the Eastern markets is the fact, that in Poland ten years after the reunification of Eastern and Western Europe, there was no longer a Polish retailer in the Top Ten Food Chains (figure 10).

Figure 10: Top Poland Retailers 2000

Relating to the former socialist territories still being in transition, Western Corporate Social Responsibility activities are suggested to facilitate political and monetary participation of the Eastern partners in the wealth creation in these countries (Hallier, 2000b).

Conclusion

This pragmatic case study portrayed the activities and contributions of EHI to retail innovation from 1951 until today. The case study reflects that timely and proactive entrepreneurial answers to urgent societal and environmental problems, for example, food security and quality triggered by global animal deseases, can make a significant change. It shows, for example, to business students how entrepreneurial spirit and visions can, finally, materialize in a variety of business ventures ranging from company creations, spin offs to networks. The case study also reflects a gradual

355 development from national to international engagement increasingly integrating international partner organizations and synergizing their diverse contributions. It calls for systems and cluster thinking of the overall global supply chain which could be seen as a precondition that intiatives on a business level can even ignite political decision makers on a European level. Relating to the strategy of

Corporate Social Responsibility, the author appeals to participate in a global survey which documents the various contributions of retailers to the environment. Due to their increasing market power and influence, especially, large retailers might be able to give a most valuable contribution in this respect.

Pointing to developments in Eastern Europe these Corporate Social Responsibility should also be driven by the intention to contribute to increased levels of wealth and living standards of Eastern

European consumers.

Bibliography

Atzberger, M., 1996, Zentrale Datenbank Rind, in: Dynamik im Handel., 12/96, S. 6 ff;

Bornemann, St., 1996, „Gläserne Produktion“ nicht nur bei Rindfleisch, in : Dynamik im Handel, 3/96, S.56 ff;

Byrne, D., Health and Consumer Protection throughout the Food Chain: The Importance of Traceability, in:

Hallier, B., 2001a, Praxisorientierte Handelsforschung, Köln, 2001, S. 303 ff;

EHI , 1995, Herkunfts- und Qualitätssicherung Rind/Rindfleisch, Köln;

EHI (1997), Elektronische Identifikation und Rückverfolgbarkeit von Tieren, Köln; EHI (1997), Auf dem Wege zur EU-Etikettierung, Köln;

EHI, 2001, Transparenz in der Wertschöpfungskette Fleisch, Köln;

EHI, 2005, Internet-gestützte Daten zum Rind, Köln; EHI (2004), Tracking and Tracing, Köln; EHI (2005), Best Practice Study Meat, Cologne

Hallier, B., 1995a, EHI-Herkunftsetikettierung für Rindfleisch, in: Dynamik im Handel, 3/95, S.2ff

Hallier., B., 1995b, Auf dem Weg zum Computerintegrated Trading in: Dymaik im Handel, 7/95, S. 2 ff

Hallier, B., 1996, Elektronische Identifikation machbar, in: Dynamik im Handel, 12/96, S.4ff

Hallier, B., 1997a, Elektronische Identifikation ante portas, in: Dynamik im Handel, 2/97, S. 46ff

Hallier, B., 1997b, Weichen zur Kooperation gestellt, in: Dynamik im Handel, 3/97, S. 4

Hallier, B., 1997c, Etikettierung: Bewegung im Markt, in: Dynamik im Handel, 5/97, S.42 ff

Hallier, B., 1997d, Sicherheit + Rationalisierung = Kostenneutralität?, in: Dynamik im Handel, 10/97, S. 4 ff

Hallier, B., 1998a, Strategische Quantensprünge, in : Dynamik im Handel, 3/98; S. 4 ff

Hallier, B., 1998b, Vom EHI-Etikett zur EU-Verordnung, in: Dynamik im Handel., 6/98, S. 1

Hallier., B., Innovationsschübe im Handel, in : Dynamik im Handel, 5/99, S. 8 ff

Hallier, B., 2000a, Vom Krisenmanagement zum Nutritional Marketing, in: Dynamik im Handel, 2/2000, S. 10 ff

356 Hallier, B., 2000b, Transformation erfordert Partizipation, in: Dynamik im Handel, 3/2000, S. 10 ff

Hallier, B., 2000c, Gewinnung sozialer Kompetenz, in: Dynamik im Handel, 4/2000, S.40 ff

Hallier, B., 2001a, Praxisorientierte Handelsforschung, Köln, 2001, S. 303 ff;

Hallier, B., 2001b, Vom Krisenmanagement zum Nutritional Marketing, in: Hallier, B., Praxisorientierte Handelsforschung., S. 311 ff

Hallier, B., 2008, Quality Assurance for the Total Supply Chain, in: Justratov, V., Moderner Lebensmittelmarkt.

Herstellung und Distribution . Materialien der internationalen Konferenz, Kemerovo (Russland), 2008,

S.133 ff

Huppert, E., 1997, Der Lebensmittelhandel auf dem Weg nach Europa , in: Dynamik im Handel, 6/97, S. 46 ff

Jürgens, P., 1997, Auf den Nutzen kommt es an, in: Dynamik im Handel, 10/97, S.12 ff,

Jürgens, P., 1998, Etikettierung ante portas, in: Dynamik im Handel, 6/98, S. 4 ff;

Kempcke, Th., 1998, Food plus 98: Sonderschau feiert Premiere, in: Dynamik im Handel, 9/98, S. 8;

Lambertz, W., 1998, Orgainvent ist Marktführer, in: Dynamik im Handel, 9/98, S. 29;

Möller, K.,1995, „Gläserne Produktionskette“ machbar, EHI-Regelwerk Fleisch soll ausgedehnt werden, in: Dynamik im Handel, 12/95, S. 39 ff;

Möller, K.,1996, In der Offensive, in: Dynamik im Handel, 12/96, S. 12 ff

Möller, K., 1997a, BML begrüßt EHI-Initiative, in: Dynamik im Handel, 3/97, S.5;

Möller, K., 1997b, EHI-Beurteilungsrahmen QSS Fleisch, in : Dynamik im Handel, 10/97, S. 18 ff

Möller, K., 1997c, Fruchthandel europaweit integriert, in: Dynamik im Handel, 5/97, S. 58 ff;

Möller. K., 1998, Mit Eurep zur Integrierten Produktion, in: Dynamik a.a.O, 6/98, S. 48 ff

Möller. K., 1999a, Eurep mit neuem Logo, in: Dynamik im Handel, 8/99, S. 11

Möller, K, 1999b, Eurep – Praxistests kurz vor dem Abschluss, in : Dynamik im Handel, 10/99, S. 28 ff;

Möller. K., 2000a, Eurep GAP: Ab jetzt neutral kontrolliert, in: Dynamik im Handel, 1/2000, S. 42 ff.

Möller, K., 2000b, EurepGAP implementiert, in: Dynamik im Handel, 6/2000, S. 13 f

Pretzel, J., 1995, Informationen und Aufklärung sind Trumpf, in: Dynamik im Handel, 9/95, S. 10 ff

Roux, N., Qualitätssicherung mit System, in: Dynamik im Handel, 10/99, S.10 ff

Scheper, U., 1996, BSE im Internet , in: Dynamik im Handel, 9/96, S. 22 ff

Schneehagen, K., 1999, Auf das Etikett kommt es an ..., in: Dynamik im Handel, 6/99, S. 34 ff;

Westerman, P., 1997, Wal-Mart; Wettbewerbsvorteil durch Data Warehouse, in : Dynamik im Handel, 9/97, S. 30 ff

357