Talk:Life+

From Testiwiki
Revision as of 18:12, 6 September 2012 by Päivi Meriläinen (talk | contribs) (→‎TECHNICAL APPLICATION FORMS Part C – detailed technical description of the proposed actions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Main message:
Question:

How can you briefly describe the contents of an environment and health decision support application, to be sent to the Life+ call in 2012?

Answer:

National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL, located in Finland) has developed, improved, and applied an online decision support system Opasnet in several previous research projects. The web workspace can collect and store data, compute complex models, perform decision analyses on practical cases, manage discussions between stakeholders, build directly on previous work, and spread conclusions and rationale of decisions to wide audiences. The unique feature of Opasnet is that everything happens openly online, and the technology and behavioural rules keep the work process efficient and on track even when anyone is allowed and encouraged to participate.

Several pilot projects about e.g. drinking water safety, air pollution, infectious diseases, and climate change have demonstrated the technical and practical functionalities of the Opasnet system. However, the main challenge now is to implement the functionalities by large groups of other users than the developers or other researchers. To this aim, this project launches several implementation activities where municipalities and waterworks companies are performing environment and health assessments and related public discussions to guide their own decision making processes. In the beginning, we focus on two distinct topics: to develop Water Safety Plans for waterworks (WSP; this is a task mandated by legislation in the near future), and to develop practical implementation plans of climate change policies by Finnish municipalities that already have a policy paper on this issue. Especially we will pay attention to the interfaces of these two topics, e.g. raw water quality related to climate-change-induced precipitation changes, and connections to other Life+ strategic objectives such as air quality as a factor in climate policies. With these implementation case studies, this project will:

  • a) produce practical guidance and understanding for the participating communities about their own topics of interest;
  • b) produce generic information that can be directly used by any community having a similar problem;
  • c) produce the same relevant generic information translated in English, German, French, and Spanish and distribute it online;
  • d) evaluate the practices and tools of open online collaboration and increase understanding about their challenges;
  • e) improve practices and tools of open online collaboration based on the evaluations;
  • f) open up and support new implementation case studies about water safety and climate change;
  • g) develop models, tools, and data to work on other topics than water and climate as well, such as environmentally friendly urban transportation, and give support to new users of these functionalities.
Main message:
Question:

Millainen on lyhyt kuvaus ympäristön ja terveyden päätöksenteon tukijärjestelmää koskevasta hakemuksesta, joka on tarkoitus jättää Life+-hakuun syyskuussa 2012?

Answer:

Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos (THL) on kehittänyt, parantanut ja soveltanut verkkopohjaista päätöksenteon tukijärjestelmää Opasnetiä useissa aiemmissa tutkimushankkeissa. Tämä verkkotyötila voi kerätä ja tallentaa dataa, laskea monimutkaisia malleja, suorittaa päätösanalyyseja käytännöllisistä tapauksista, hallita sidosryhmien välistä keskustelua aiheesta, rakentaa suoraan aiemman työn varaan ja levittää päätösten päätelmiä ja perusteluja laajan yleisön tietoon. Opasnetin ainutlaatuinen piirre on, että kaikki tapahtuu verkossa avoimesti, ja teknologia sekä käyttäytymissäännöt pitävät työskentelyn tehokkaana ja raiteillaan vaikka kenen tahansa sallitaan ja toivotaankin osallistuvan työhön.

Useat aiemmat pilottihankkeet esimerkiksi juomaveden turvallisuudesta, ilmansaasteista, infektiotaudeista ja ilmastonmuutoksesta ovat osoittaneet Opasnet-järjestelmän teknisen ja käytännöllisen toimintakyvyn. Kuitenkin tämän hetken haaste on soveltaa järjestelmän toiminnallisuuksia tilanteissa, joissa on useita ja laajoja käyttäjäryhmiä kehittäjien ja muiden tutkijoiden joukon ulkopuolelta. Tämän saavuttamiseksi käynnistamme useita sovellushankkeita, joissa kunnat ja vesilaitokset tekevät ympäristö- ja terveysarviointeja ja käyvät julkista keskustelua sidosryhmien kanssa oman päätöksentekonsa tueksi. Aluksi keskitymme kahteen aiheeseen: kehittämään vesilaitoksille veden turvallisuussuunnitelmia (Water Safety Plan WSP, joka joka tulee aikanaan lainsäädännön kautta laadittavaksi), ja kehittämään käytännöllisiä toteutussuunnitelmia ilmastopoliittisille ohjelmille sellaisissa kunnissa, joilla tällainen ohjelma jo on ja jotka ovat siihen sitoutuneet. Erityisesti tarkastellaan myös näiden kahden aihepiirin yhtymäkohtia, esimerkiksi ilmastonmuutoksen aiheuttamien sadantamuutosten vaikutusta raakavesiin, ja yhtymäkohtia Life+-ohjelman muihin strategisiin tavoitteisiin kuten ilmanlaadun yhteyttä ilmastopolitiikkoihin. Näiden sovellushankkeiden avulla tämä hanke

  • a) tuottaa käytännön ohjeistusta ja ymmärrystä osallistuville yhteisöille heille itselleen tärkeästä aiheesta;
  • b) tuottaa yleistettävää tietoa, jota mikä tahansa kunta voi suoraan hyödyntää samanlaisen ongelmansa käsittelyyn;
  • c) tuottaa samaa merkittävää tietoa käännettynä englanniksi, saksaksi, ranskaksi ja espanjaksi ja jakaa sen avoimesti verkossa;
  • d) evaluoi avoimen verkkoyhteistyön käytäntöjä ja työkaluja ja lisää ymmärrystä niiden haasteista;
  • e) parantaa avoimen verkkoyhteistyön käytäntöjä ja työkaluja näiden evaluointien perusteella;
  • f) avaa ja tukee uusia sovellushankkeita vesiturvallisuudesta ja ilmastonmuutoksesta;
  • g) kehittää malleja, työkaluja ja dataa avuksi muiden kuin vesi- ja ilmastoaiheiden työstämiseen, kuten ympäristöystävälliseen kaupunkiliikenteeseen liittyen, ja tukee uusia käyttäjiä näiden toiminnallisuuksien käyttämisessä.


LIFE+ application

Tittle: ORACLE (Open assessment as a tool to pRomote wAter safety planning and life cyCLE assessment of actions)

Basic information (a draft as everything on this page):

  • Name of application: ORACLE (Open assessment as a tool to pRomote wAter safety planning and life cyCLE assessment of actions)
  • Funding period: ca. July 2013 - June 2017
  • Total budget: 1.8 M€ (EU contribution 900 k€)
  • Coordinator: Jouni Tuomisto, THL
  • Partners: THL, SYKE?, CUT, VVY, Waterworks of Siilinjärvi municipality, Waterworks of Mikkeli municipality, Waterworks of Kuopio municipality?
  • National priorities: Finland has NOT set any national priorities that should be taken into account in the proposal. (info from P. Harju-Autti, 23.8.)


Ideas

Ideas about Handprinter / CUT:

I would suggest that we work on various pilots of application and advancement of the open assessment framework to the modeling of a few categories of "handprint actions", and if needed, we can stress the German-speaking European context for the first year, along perhaps with another geographic region (Finland? Cyprus, John?)

The ideas are, very briefly:

  • Handprinter exists, and is advancing, as a platform by which individuals and organizations and communities assess their multi-dimensional footprint, and then perform (and propose) actions which create positive benefits on potentially ALL of the dimensions of environmental concern mentioned in the Life+ page.
  • Handprinter, like Opasnet, is open in architecture, allowing and encouraging users to submit ideas for new handprint actions.
  • When new actions are proposed, we will rely on volunteer experts using the OpAsNet infrastructure to collaboratively build and continually refine models that help users (humanity) to estimate the full impacts of these actions.
  • We anticipate a major collaboration with organizers of German-speaking events (music festivals, concerts, cinema, etc. ) [Thus, in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria] during summer 2013, in which these events will seek to engage their participants in collaboratively ensuring that each of these events is net-positive in environmental impact, on as many dimensions as possible, starting with climate change. They will do this by minimizing their footprints, but then encouraging participants to use Handprinter, to learn about, commit to, and build more widespread momentum around, creative actions (at home, work, and community) which bring environmental benefits.
  • A focus of my participation in this project could be working to support the maximum possible effectiveness of harnessing Opasnet -- and researchers from around the world -- to provide a body of voluntary analysts and modelers to ensure that the creative ideas generated by the German-speaking public, stemming from the Summer 2013 publicity, are well-characterized in terms of their impacts. Note that the timing of this proposal is quite well-suited, since we anticipate that Summer 2013 is just the starting point of a multi-year groundswell of public engagement, from German-speaking citizens radiating outward across the world in the years that follow.

Greg -- I like the idea of starting with the German speaking areas of the EU and also doing Finland and Cyprus as demonstrations of the capability of Opasnet and Handprinter. We can harness CII students via practicum projects and maybe enlist a group of students in Finland to work in tandem with the Cypriots. -- John


Ideas are connected to the strategic objectives of Life+ (see Life+ for details):

  • Climate change: Urgenche energy balance and emission model is used on city level. The development is not done in this project but in Urgenche; instead, this project spreads the functionalities to cities not involved in urgenche. Contacts: Clive Sabel, role: exchange of information, not a partner in Life+, benefit: both projects gain credibility from each other.
  • Water: Implementation of op_fi:Vesiopas model in several waterworks in Finland. Modelling of climate change induced problem of raw water. Contacts: SYKE, role: modelling of natural water systems in relation to climate change, partner in Life+; example cities: Kuopio, Mikkeli,..., role: test and implement Vesiopas and natural water models in decision making in the city.
  • Air: Urgenche energy balance and emission model is used to model emissions from energy in several case study cities in practical decision making situations (Kuopio, Mikkeli, Rauma,...)
  • Urban environment: Urgenche GIS buildings model is used to model city infrastructure (not in the beginning of project). Also composite traffic model is applied in developing urban environment, air quality, and climate mitigation all in one. Contacts: HSL, who is starting to implement composite traffic in small scale between university campuses, role: not a partner but a utiliser, info provider, and reality check.
  • Noise: ⇤# : If we had an open noise model we could contribute to this by providing noise modelling in the urban planning. In the current plan we don't. --Jouni 06:57, 21 August 2012 (EEST)
  • Environment and health: Opasnet as a whole contains several functionalities to support this: assessment environment, large encyclopedia, guidance documents for making assessments (from Intarese if we take the content), IRIS, Ebode etc data to be utilised in assessments, decision support system, Avary to support nowcomers' work (this should be made official?!)
  • Forests: To provide, especially through an EU coordination network, a concise and comprehensive basis for policy-relevant information on forests in relation to climate change (impact on forest ecosystems, mitigation, substitution effects), biodiversity (baseline information and protected forest areas), forest fires, forest conditions and the protective functions of forests (water, soil and infrastructure) as well as contributing to the protection of forests against fires; --# : Does UTU have something to offer in this, or ideas what could be done? --Jouni 06:57, 21 August 2012 (EEST)
  • Innovation: Opasnet offers a perfect platform for support innovative policy approaches and technologies. Contact: THL, provide, develop, and market the policy support system. Handprinter: to measure the impacts of actions by policy makers (municipalities, governments.,,,), NGOs and citizens. Contacts: THL, role: Opasnet development and offering of platform; CII, role: offering and development of Handprinter.
  • Strategic approaches: To promote effective implementation and enforcement of Union environmental legislation and improve the knowledge base for environmental policy; to improve the environmental performance o SMEs. --# : Can Nordem as a SME take a specific role in this, or this rather a general outcome of the other activity of the project? --Jouni 06:57, 21 August 2012 (EEST) --# : I don't really see how SMEs would be directly targeted within this project, but the first goal "promotion of effective implementation ... environmental policy" is. This, however, requires specific attention, not just existence, offering and expert use of models, workspaces etc. Nordem can participate in this part, quite much in the spirit of the planned Tekaisu case studies. --Mikko Pohjola 08:12, 21 August 2012 (EEST)

Eniten päänvaivaa on tähän mennessä aiheuttanut se, että hakemukseen pitäisi löytää jokin selkeä Implementation-aspekti. Onhan sekin hyvä, että voimme sanoa, että meillä on jo olemassa Opasnet ja siellä Vesiopas, joita voi käyttää juomavesiriskien arviointiin tai Urgenche-malleja ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntatoimien arviointiin. Mutta meillä pitäisi olla jotain enemmän kuin "voi käyttää". Miten nämä mallit jalkautetaan kentälle? Ketkä niitä tulevat käyttämään? Mitä tukea tai muuta työtä tarvitaan, jotta jalkautus oikeasti onnistuu? Näitä kysymyksiä pitäisi kiireesti miettiä. Teillä on vesipuolella tästä parempi näkemys kuin minulla. Pistän tämän myös Urgenche-porukalle mietittäväksi: miten jalkautetaan Urgenchessa tuotettavat mallit paitsi Kuopioon myös muiden, urgenchen ulkopuolisten kaupunkien käyttöön? Ja tämä kytkeytyy myös Tekaisu-hankkeeseen, jossa myös koetamme ratkoa kuntatason implementointiin liittyviä kysymyksiä.

--# : Onko mahdollista sisällyttää hakemukseen myös välineiden sovelluksen ja testauksen työpaketti tai tehtäviä? Sisältönä vesioppaan ja Urgenchen (sekä muiden) mallien käyttö käytännön tilanteissa (kaupungit ja vesilaitokset) ja toimivuuden sekä vaikuttavuuden tutkiminen (THL, Nordem). Muistuttaa TEKAISUun suuniteltuja pilot-caseja, mutta voi ottaa välinekeskeisemmän näkökulman. Tukee siten TEKAISUn TP1:tä sekä TP3:a, mutta erityisesti toteuttaa ohjelmassa kaivattua demonstrointia. --Mikko Pohjola 13:39, 8 August 2012 (EEST)

--# : Vesioppaan tulevia käyttäjiä voisivat olla WSP:n käyttäjät. Vesioppaan osalta kiinnostavia käytännön ongelmia talousveden laadun suhteen ovat ääritilanteet jotka liittyvät ilmastonmuutokseen ovat esim. rankkasateet. Tällöin veden mikrobiologinen laatu heikkenee ja raakaveden sameus lisääntyy, ja suositellut lisäpuhdistustoimet, kuten UV-desinfiointi ei välttämättä riitä lisääntyneen sameuden vuoksi. Kemialliselta puolelta mangaani nousevana terveysongelmana. --Päivi Meriläinen 16:05, 17 August 2012 (EEST)

Samin kommentteja 15.8.2012:

katsoin Opasnetista ja komission sivuilta pikaisesti. Ohjeissa oli jotain ristiriitaisuutta. Dokkareissa todettiin että rahoituksessa on perinteisesti suosittu isoja projekteja, miljoonan euron suuruusluokkaa, mikä tarkoittaisi useampien partnerien keräämistä. Ne siis pitäisi olla valmiina. Toisaalta todettiin että ylikansallisia projekteja suositaan vain jos ne ovat ns. välttämättömiä. (1.6.12). Tarkoitettiinkohan tällä vain niitä projekteja joissa toteutetaan käytännössä jokin suojelutoimenpide?

--# : Iso rahoitus ei edellytä lukuisia partnereita. Mutta jokin loppukäyttäjäpartneri tarvittaisiin, esim. Kuntaliitto tulee hakematta mieleen. --Jouni 13:28, 15 August 2012 (EEST)


Ajatuksia 1. Olen jo aikaisemmin alkanut näpertelemään biodiversiteettimallinnuksen kanssa yhtä toista päämäärää varten. Työ ei vielä ole kovin pitkälle edennyt, mutta periaatteessa sitä mukaa (jos ja kun) materiaalia syntyy se on Life+:n käytettävissä. 2. Metsät ja metsäpalot mainittiin myös. Meillä on 'käyttämätön' metsäpalomalli valmiina (tosin se on nykymuodossaan liian raskas R:lle) ja sekin voidaan luovuttaa Life+-käyttöön jos tarvetta on. Nyt on myös käytössä MMLn maastodataa sekä Ilmatieteenlaitoksen säätietoja voidaan hyödyntää. 3. Voisiko (joukko)liikennemalleista kehittää anomuksen rungon? Niihin saadaan hyvin linkitettyä monta muuta juttua jotka on jo tehty Opasnetissä tai jotka ovat tekeillä (melu, energia, hiili, kaupunkisuunnittelu jne.) Voisimme myös mainostaa asiaan liittyvää kaupallista potentiaalia ja näyttää että asian tiimoilta on julkaisuja, koulutusta jne.

Sami

--# : Hakemukseen mahtuu kyllä muutakin kuin vesiopas ja urgenche, joten nämä eivät ole poissuljettuja. Mutta ajatus on markkinoida tyyliin "meillä on jo valmiita malleja, ja nyt implementoidaan". Mallikehitys istuu tähän huonosti. --Jouni 13:28, 15 August 2012 (EEST)

No nyt sain luettua tuon keskustelusivunkin. Siellähän oli jo runkoa. Mulla ei ole siis tarkoitus tuputtaa mukaan mitään vaan vastata vaan Jounin kommenttipyyntöön. Jatkan vielä aikaisemman mailin linjoilla koska mun mielestä liittymäkohdat ilmastonmuutokseen ja Urgencheen ovat ilmeiset (ainakin kaikki GIS-työpaketit, Exposure jne.).

Urgenchessahan on mukana se joukkoliikennemalli mistä itsekin mainitsin ja se on ainakin suunnitelman mukaan tarkoitus ottaa pohjaksi eri kaupungeissa tehtäviä arviointeja varten. Voisiko Life-hakemusta painottaa konkretian takia niin että se tähtäisi nimenomaan työkalujen viemiseen yrityksiin ja yhteisöihin (kaupunkien liikennelaitokset, yksityiset liikennöitsijät, kimppakyytiyhteisöt jne.) Pakettiin kuuluisi rahoituksen hakeminen yrittäjien kouluttamiseksi työkalun käyttöön. Tämä olisi mielestäni paljon tehokkaampaa kuin arviointityökalujen tarjoaminen hallinnon käyttöön. Työkaluihin lisättäisiin ominaisuuksia jotka mahdollistaisivat joukkoliikennepalveluiden varsinaisten käyttäjien osallistumisen suunnitteluun. Asiaan voisi yhdistää vielä jotain kaupunkisuunnittelun näkökulmia.

--# : Tuo joukkoliikenne/yhdistelmäliikennekuvio houkuttelee, ja siinä olisi omanlaisiaan houkuttelevia loppukäyttäjiä. Kuitenkin yhdistelmäliikennemallin mainostaminen valmiina mallina arveluttaa. Onhan se sikäli valmis, että sillä on jo julkaistu artikkelikin, mutta kehitystyötä on kohtalaisesti, ennen kuin Opasnet-versio toimii. Mutta mietitään. --Jouni 13:28, 15 August 2012 (EEST)

Vesiopas on tietty hyödyllinen mutta sillä ei nähdäkseni samanlaista yritysnäkökulmaa ole.

Tässä taas tämmöinen pikainen tempaisu...

Sami

Niin, ja sitten pitäisi vielä löytää joku taho, joka ottaa rakennettavan työkalun käyttöönsä. Niinhän ohjeissa sanottiin.

Sami

Task list

  • Set up the application organisation DL 20.8. Suggestion:
    • Coordinator: Jouni (or Ilkka?)
    • Manager: Laura
    • WP 1 Water: Ilkka, Päivi
    • WP 2 Climate change: Virpi
    • Contact person in Kuopion Vesi: Markku Lehtola?
    • Contact person in Kuopion ympäristötoimisto: Erkki Pärjälä
    • Contact person in Mikkelin vesilaitos: ?
  • Define objectives DL 20.8.
  • Find implementing partners 28.8. Ilkka, Jouni, Päivi
  • Go through the Life+ database and find similar projects: learn and build on them. DL 1.9. Laura
  • Go through guidance documents DL. 20.8. Laura
  • Set up an account in the application system DL 20.8. Laura

Objectives

  • To implement a drinking water model Vesiopas on the waterworks level to support decision making
  • To implement an urban energy model (Urgenche) to assess climate mitigation policies in city-level urban planning. ⇤# : Does the EU funding prevent the use of this? --Jouni 10:42, 2 August 2012 (EEST)
  • To implement a citizen forum in Opasnet for collecting and organising views and values about water and energy issues.
  • --# : What is the practical environmental problem that is improved related to water? --Jouni 10:42, 2 August 2012 (EEST)
    • --# : Contamination of raw water sources: Heavy rain periods increase microbial contamination in surface and ground water (and chemicals such as pesticides). Dry periods convert groundwater flow, which can cause microbiological problems. --Päivi Meriläinen 15:58, 17 August 2012 (EEST)
  • --# : What is the practical environmental problem that is improved related to energy/urban planning? --Jouni 10:42, 2 August 2012 (EEST)

Partners

  • Expert partners (provide models and expertise to be implemented, develop products further based on implementation lessons)
    1. THL
      • Water and Health Unit, THL
        • Ilkka Miettinen
        • Tarja Pitkänen?
      • Assessment and Modelling Unit, THL
        • Jouni Tuomisto
        • Päivi Meriläinen
      • Innokylä, THL (+Kuntaliitto)
        • Pasi Pohjola
        • Mari Kiviniemi
    2. SYKE
      • Water system modelling unit
    3. CII: John Evans, Gregory Norris
      • Handprinter: life cycle assessment of actions
    4. Nordem Oy: Mikko Pohjola ⇤# : Can Nordem collect 50 % own funding? If not, it should be subcontracted; but then all critical work e.g. action leaderships should not be in Nordem. --Jouni 11:11, 22 August 2012 (EEST)
      • Evaluation of implementation projects and assessment methods.
  • Implementing partners (have a real need for improvement in a key area and for implement new approaches and tools. Define the areas of implementation)
    • Mikkelin vesilaitos
    • VVY
    • Siilinjärven vesilaitos?
    • Kuopion Vesi?
    • Kuopion kaupunki/Ympäristötoimisto
    • Kuntaliitto
  • Stakeholders and main target audience of the project

←# : Needs to be defined to the application form B4. --Lhiq 14:38, 28 August 2012 (EEST)

"Indicate the stakeholders the proposal intends to involve and how. Please indicate which kind of input you want for their involvement. Describe target groups and methods for dissemination of knowledge. Comments on activities for general publicity and/or marketing of the concept during and after the implementation." (Page 19. LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance, Guidelines for applicants 2012, Part 2 - Application forms)

The aim is to involve municipalities and waterworks that don't have the resources to become partners, but still are interested in implementing the tools available. These contacts are invited to project seminars and their travel costs to them are reimbursed. New municipalities and waterworks are actively recruited during the project. The interested municipalities and waterworks can also invite and expert to come to help them with the tools available within the project.

The tools available in this project are products of previous projects and the contact persons of these projects are one important group of stakeholders. "Urgenche" (Urban Reduction of GHG Emissions in China and Europe) is one of these projects. The aim of Urgenche is to develop and apply a methodological framework for the assessment of the overall risks and benefits of alternative greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction policies for health and well-being in China and Europe. Urgenche is an ongoing project and to ensure the distiction between the projects, the tools developed in Urgenche are tested and verified in other municipalities than partners of Urgenche.


    • Urgenche, Clive Sabel: Urgenche energy, emission, and urban models
    • HSL, composite traffic (this could be an implementing partner if we can organise this within a month, which is unlikely due to lack of previous personal contacts)
    • SYKE/Policy analysis unit ⇤# : They might be national users but in the current project structure, they don't have a meaningful major role as a partner (e.g. as an action leader). --Jouni 12:48, 23 August 2012 (EEST)
    • City of Kuopio

Kokous 21.8.2012 (Jouni, Ilkka, Päivi, Laura, Outi, Mikko P, Mikko S)

Tämän tekstin voisi upottaa asianmukaisiin kohtiin osaksi kokonaisuutta, kunhan se alkaa jäsentyä.

  • Vesipuitedirektiivi sisältää uimavesidirektiivin, virkistyskäytön, vedenhankinnan. Tarjoaa siis hyvän hallinnollisen viitekehyksen tarkasteluille.
  • Jätevesien ylijuoksutus rankkasateissa, koska hulevedet usein menevät jätevesiviemäreihin: seurauksena mikrobien ja ravinteiden pääsy ympäristöön.
  • Projektin kielenä on suomi, koska muuten karkotetaan soveltajia. Kuitenkin hakemus kirjoitetaan englanniksi, joten soveltajien kannalta olennaiset osat siitäkin pitää kääntää myös suomeksi.
  • Aihepiirit: WSP:n tekeminen, ilmastopoliittisten ohjelmien täytäntöönpanosuunnitelman tekeminen.
  • Partnerirakenne:
    • tutkijat/kehittäjät: THL, SYKE, CII, Nordem: menetelmätuki ja evaluointi
    • kansalliset soveltajat: Vesi- ja viemärilaitosyhdistys VVY?, Kuntaliitto (Tarja Laatikainen)?: levittävät sovelluksia valtakunnallisesti. (1 / aihepiiri)
    • paikalliset soveltajat: Kuopio, Mikkeli, Siilinjärvi, Lahti, HSY, Rauma,...: käyttävät sovelluksia omiin tapauksiinsa (n. 3 / aihepiiri)
    • ulkopuoliset soveltajat: eivät ole projektissa partnereina, mutta heidän tukemiseensa varataan partnerien resursseja, ei kuitenkaan itse työn tekemiseen.
  • WSP:ssä neljä teemaa: isot vesilaitokset, pienet vesilaitokset, jätevesilaitokset, kiinteistöjen omat vesijärjestelmät. Tässä hankkeessa painotutaan isoihin vesilaitoksiin ja jätevesilaitoksiin.
  • Jouni etsii esitykset Ilmastoareenasta, koska siellä oli tärkeitä kontakteja.
  • Kuntien ilmastokampanja - niminen hanke on olemassa.
  • Hankekokoukset järjestetään avoimesti ja myös online, jotta tieto leviää tehokkaasti.
  • Mietittävä miten tehdään arkaluontoisten tietojen kanssa: esim. WSP paljastaa vesilaitosten haavoittuvat kohdat.

Monitoring of the impact of project actions (obligatory)

(From LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance, Guidelines for applicants 2012, Part 1 - Content of the proposal)

All projects will have to include monitoring actions.

The implementation actions (B actions) must lead to a measurable improvement of the state of the environment targeted by the project. Monitoring these effects should take place throughout the project and its results should be evaluated on a regular basis. In this regard, every project proposal must contain an appropriate amount of monitoring activities in order to measure the project's impact on the environmental problem targeted. These activities are distinct of the monitoring of the project progress (E actions). For this purpose, the project management should identify specific indicators to be used to measure the impact of the project. These indicators should be coherent with the environmental problem addressed and the type of activities planned during the project. The initial situation from which the project starts should be assessed and progress should be regularly evaluated against it. The monitoring of the project impact on the environmental problem should allow the project management either to confirm the adequacy of the developed means to address the specific problems and threats, or to question these means and alternatively develop new ones. At the end of the project, the beneficiaries should be able to quantify the progress achieved, in terms of impact on the targeted environmental problem.

In addition, each proposal must include an action aimed to assess the socioeconomic impact of the project actions on the local economy and population. This can take the form of a study consolidating the data and results over the project lifetime, to be delivered with the Final Report. Projects should aim to increase social awareness and acceptance of the benefits of protecting the environment. Examples of positive effects of the project are: direct or indirect employment growth, enhancement of other activities (e.g. ecotourism) aimed to develop supplementary income sources, offsetting social and economic isolation, raising the profile of the area/region, resulting in increasing the viability of the local community (especially in rural areas).

Communication and dissemination actions (obligatory)

(From LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance, Guidelines for applicants 2012, Part 1 - Content of the proposal)

LIFE+ Environment Policy & Governance projects are innovative and/or demonstration projects (except where they concern the comprehensive, long-term, harmonised monitoring of forests). They must include a significant set of actions to disseminate the results of the project so that the knowledge gained is actively communicated to those targeted stakeholders that may best make use of it and apply the lessons from the project.

These typically include:

  • information activities regarding the project to the general public and stakeholders aimed at facilitating the implementation of the project
  • awareness and dissemination actions aimed at publicising the project and its results both to the general public and to other stakeholders that could usefully benefit from the project's experience and implement themselves the innovative actions demonstrated in the project.

The range of possible actions is large (media work, organisation of events for the local European Union, didactic work with local schools, seminars, workshops, brochures, leaflets, newsletters, DVDs, technical publications, …), and those proposed should form a coherent package. To be effective, these actions should in general begin early on in the project. Each communication and dissemination action must clearly define and justify its target audience, and should be expected to have a significant impact. The organisation of large and costly scientific meetings or the financing of large-scale visitor infra-structures is not eligible.

Note that certain communication actions are obligatory (project web site, notice boards …) and should therefore be explicitly foreseen in the proposal. See Article 13 of the Common Provisions: "Communication actions …" for full details.

Please see also for detailed advice on communication and dissemination actions.

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

The National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) is a research and development institute under the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. THL seeks to serve the broader society in addition to the scientific community, actors in the field and decision-makers in central government and municipalities. The aim is to promote health and welfare in Finland.

The Department of Environmental Health is one of the leading centers of environmental health in Europe. Its purpose is to anticipate, prevent and combat environmental health threats. It gives advice based on high-quality research and work in close cooperation with officials and local authorities. Currently the Department of Environmental Health is coordinating Life+ project INSULATE (Improving energy efficiency of housing stock: impacts of indoor environmental quality and public health in Europe, LIFE09 ENV/FI/000573)and participating in EXPAH (Population Exposure to PAH, LIFE09/ ENV/IT/000082).

OTHER PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR EUROPEAN UNION FUNDING

Please answer each of the following questions:

  • Have you or any of your associated beneficiaries already benefited from previous LIFE cofinancing? (please cite LIFE project reference number, title, year, amount of the co-financing, duration, name(s) of coordinating beneficiary and/or partners involved):
  • Have you or any of the associated beneficiaries submitted any actions related directly or indirectly to this project to other European Union financial instruments? To whom? When and with what results?
  • For those actions which fall within the eligibility criteria for financing through other European Union financial instruments, please explain in full detail why you consider that those actions nevertheless do not fall within the main scope of the instrument(s) in question and are therefore included in the current project.


TECHNICAL APPLICATION FORMS Part B - technical summary and overall context of the project

SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT (Max. 3 pages; to be completed in English)

Project title: Open assessment as a tool to promote water safety planning and life cycle assessment of actions

Project objectives:

Actions and means involved:

Expected results (outputs and quantified achievements):

Can the project be considered to be a climate change adaptation project? Yes No

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM TARGETED

STATE OF THE ART AND INNOVATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT

Wise decisions lead to effective actions, which can either reduce pressures such as emissions or directly improve the state of the environment. Decisions are inevitably based on the knowledge of the people who make those decisions. A recent analysis found out that a most critical issue in dealing with environmental health risks is the inefficient use of information in decision making (Pohjola et al XXXX). There are huge amounts of data and information about environmentally relevant information in scientific publications and reports, but the utilisation of this information is poor when decisions are made in practice. The same problem exists with decision makers who are citizens living their daily lives, as well as with those who are government representatives negotiating about global climate treaties.

This is not because decisions makers would be stupid or ignorant. A major problem is that decision makers don't have the time and resources to distill those pieces of information that are truly relevant and critical for the particular situation. The production process of scientific information is not optimised for answering this kind of practical questions. On the contrary, many risk assessment paradigms specifically separate the risk assessment and risk management in the aim of keeping assessment as an objective scientific exercise. This narrows the role of the expert to only assess the magnitude of a risk but ignoring its practical implications, while the decision maker has a lonely task to make a coherent synthesis about this risk estimate, valuations, and all other issues relevant for the decision.

Unfortunately, because of this common separation of "science" and "management", an excellent scientific practice is not effectively used in risk management. This practice is the practice of making incremental improvements by continuous, open criticism. In addition to science, a similar approach is seen in the implementation of policies in market: when e.g. a new environmental tax is applied, all market players produce improvements and solutions to absorb the shock, and the most efficient solutions survive. In decision making, such market or agora rarely exists. Good decision options are not openly collected and evaluated, and even if someone offers them for decision making, there is no guarantee of being heard, XXXX yet to get any merit or benefit for such activity.

Decision support systems (REF XXXX) offer some science-based practical guidance for decision making. However, they are typically designed for single large questions where there is enough resources to pay for the expert work needed. In addition, they are rarely based on open criticism but on the high expertise of those experts that design the system and collect the data. Opasnet and Handprinter are radically different decision support systems in this respect. The are designed in a way that once a tool has been created, it is easy and cheap to copy and reuse in similar situations, with little or no additional expert work. In addition, all assumptions and equations, and data is openly available to all users and critiques. Anything can be criticised, and once a mistake has been found, if can be fixed on-the-fly, and improvements are automatically updated in the depending assessments.


DEMONSTRATION CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT

SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT

EFFORTS FOR REDUCING THE PROJECT'S "CARBON FOOTPRINT"

EU ADDED VALUE OF THE PROJECT AND ITS ACTIONS

STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED AND TARGET AUDIENCES OF THE PROJECT OTHER THAN PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

The aim is to involve municipalities and waterworks that don't have the resources to become partners, but still are interested in implementing the tools available. These contacts are invited to project seminars and their travel costs to them are reimbursed. New municipalities and waterworks are actively recruited during the project. The interested municipalities and waterworks can also invite and expert to come to help them with the tools available within the project.

The tools available in this project are products of previous projects and the contact persons of these projects are one important group of stakeholders. "Urgenche" (Urban Reduction of GHG Emissions in China and Europe) is one of these projects. The aim of Urgenche is to develop and apply a methodological framework for the assessment of the overall risks and benefits of alternative greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction policies for health and well-being in China and Europe. Urgenche is an ongoing project and to ensure the distiction between the projects, the tools developed in Urgenche are tested and verified in other municipalities than partners of Urgenche.


    • Urgenche, Clive Sabel: Urgenche energy, emission, and urban models
    • HSL, composite traffic (this could be an implementing partner if we can organise this within a month, which is unlikely due to lack of previous personal contacts)
    • SYKE/Policy analysis unit ⇤# : They might be national users but in the current project structure, they don't have a meaningful major role as a partner (e.g. as an action leader). --Jouni 12:48, 23 August 2012 (EEST)
    • City of Kuopio

EXPECTED CONSTRAINTS AND RISKS RELATED TO THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND HOW THEY WILL BE DEALT WITH (CONTINGENCY PLANNING)

CONTINUATION / VALORISATION OF THE PROJECT RESULTS AFTER THE END OF THE PROJECT

Which actions will have to be carried out or continued after the end of the project? How will this be achieved, what resources will be necessary to carry out these actions? To what extent will the results and lessons of the project be actively disseminated after the end of the project to those persons and/or organisations that could best make use of them (please identify these persons/organisations)?

TECHNICAL APPLICATION FORMS Part C – detailed technical description of the proposed actions

LIST OF ALL PROPOSED ACTIONS A. Preparatory actions (if needed) B. Implementation actions C. Monitoring of the impact of the project actions (obligatory) D. Communication and dissemination actions (obligatory) E. Project management and monitoring of the project progress (obligatory)


ACTION 1: Drinking water

Beneficiary responsible for implementation: THL

Other participating beneficiaries: (Action leaders) SYKE, Waterworks

Timeline: months 0-48

Methods employed

In this action the tool for water risk management will be tested, evaluated and applied for new water management purposes. . The target waterwork include ground water, artificially recharging ground water and surface water works, which cover all drinking water production types used. The aim of the drinking water risk assessment and management tools is to estimate and quantify the health risks associated with harmful microbes and chemicals present in drinking and recreational waters. The exposure assessment data including the concentrations of harmful substances in water from water treatment plants is linked to health risk assessment. Subsequently, the mitigation possibilities can be evaluated with this tool aiming at reducing the public health risk derived from consuming water intended for drinking or from other exposure to contaminated water.

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) will combine these aspects for estimating overall microbiological risks [ref,ref]. Integrated health assessment models developed in HIWATE and INTARESE projects and water quality based health risk model (POLARIS) have been further developed into a web based water management tool VESIOPAS to investigate health risks of different microbial agents and chemicals. The integrated health risk of drinking water from sources to consumer tap with integrated and open assessment methods have been obtained to increase awareness and stakeholder participation to strengthen the societal acceptance of risk assessment. Open assessment as a novel method (Opasnet, [ref]) directed at improving the effectiveness of impact assessments will be employed. The assessment tool involves a chain of model results and descriptions that contain contaminant emission sources, transport, exposure, and health effect estimates and conditional on management options assessed in a probabilistic Monte Carlo based modelling tool which can also include uncertainty and value of information analyses. Vesiopas tool gives direct health risk estimates which can be used to supplement water safety plans, a legislative requirement which is in planning phase at the moment and will be implement in Finland in the near future (2015-2017). This action will evaluate whether the Vesiopas can give the useful risk estimated for WSP and other water sector related administrative requirements.


In this action the following tasks will be done:

Task 1.1 Introducing the wiki based risk assessment tool “Vesiopas” to partner waterworks. Vesiopas will be introduced to waterworks in a seminar and instruction on how to conduct risk assessment related with their own water drinking water production chain. Preliminary quidency is given to identify the major chemical and microbial threats of drinking water.

Task 1.2 Implementing and testing risk assessment tool Vesiopas in interested target waterworks with support from Action 3 (Task 3.x). On site instruction will be given to show on how to collect information needed for the Vesiopas and risk assessment, how to manage the data and how to conduct the risk assessment in each partner waterworks. This task compose one of the major tasks in Action 1. The main effort for the waterworks is to identify and assess the information concerning the threats relevant for each water treatment phase in the water works. Finnish Environmental Centre (SYKE) will provide their knowledge of surface and ground water supplies and threats (flooding/drought periods) related with them. The threat scenarios originating from climate change will be included into this process.

Task 1.3 Evaluation and support to planning, execution, development and dissemination of risk assessment process. --#: Nordem? --Päivi Meriläinen 17:34, 4 September 2012 (EEST)

--# : Tekeekö THL ja SYKE tässä mitään vai odotetaanko Mikon evaluoinnin valmistumista. --Päivi Meriläinen 17:34, 4 September 2012 (EEST)

--# : Pikemmin kuin oma vaiheensa, evaluaatio on osana kaikkia muita taskeja. Tarkoitus nimenomaan on, että yhdessä tehdään, mutta minä voin vastata toteutuksesta ja ohjauksesta. --Mikko Pohjola 21:06, 4 September 2012 (EEST)
--# : Sopisiko numeroinniltaan task listin viimeiseksi? --Mikko Pohjola 21:06, 4 September 2012 (EEST)

--# : Eli voidaanko evaluointi pitää omana taskina, vaikka liittyykin kaikkiin taskeihin? Numeroinnin puolesta viimeinen on looginen --Päivi Meriläinen 21:12, 6 September 2012 (EEST)

Evaluoinnin näkökulma perustuu THL:lla kehitettyihin menetelmiin, esim. properties of good assessment (PoGA), relational evaluation approach (REA), dimensions of openness (DO) ja TEKAISU-hankkeessa mm. näiden pohjalta kehitettävään kokonaisvaltaiseen arviointien ja käytäntöjen evaluoinnin ja hallinnan menetelmään.

  • In task 1.1: Ex ante evaluation: purpose/goal definitions, choice of evaluation measures, co-development of assessment process and implementation plan
    • pitkälti rakentuu yhteisten keskustelujen pohjalle
  • In task 1.2: Evaluation of the applicability of the tool, evaluation of the success of the implementation of the risk assessment process, evaluation of the effectiveness of the tool and the process
    • kysely(jä), itse-evaluointia, projektivastaavien tekemää analyysiä
  • In task 1.4, 1.5, 1.6: Re-evaluation (Ex post) and application of evaluation results to improvement and dissemination of the tool and the process

Task 1.4 Updating and improving Vesiopas to be applied in new areas in water risk assessment.

  • Korjaavat toimenpiteet Task 1.3 arvioinnin tuloksena (?)
  • Comments from water works
  • Co-operation with SYKE raw water supplies and threats related with them

Task 1.5 Informing Finnish water sector about Vesiopas

  • Web-site – Vesiopas open for all stakeholders
  • Stakeholder seminar: experts, regulators and operators will be invited to participate

Task 1.6 Implementing Vesiopas in stakeholder waterworks

  • vaikea paikka – Waterwork will apply the Vesiopas and knowledge derived from Vesiopas in order to carry out Water Safety Plans (WSP) – kova vaatimus vesilaitoksille velvoittaa heitä toteuttamaan WSP (ei välttämättä ihan vielä ajankohtainen siinä vaiheessa kun projekti päättyy).

--# : Onko tosiaan liikaa tavoiteltu tämän projektin puitteissa? Riittääkö, että task 1.5:n kautta tehdään SH vesilaitoksia tietoisiksi ja tarjotaan välineitä, tietoa ja osaamista hyödynnettäväksi projektin ulkopuolella? --Mikko Pohjola 21:06, 4 September 2012 (EEST) --# : Voi olla liian kunnianhimoista, mutta voimmehan sanoa että kiinnostuneilla laitoksilla tehtäisiin Vesioppaan avulla alustava riskinarviointi (kiinnostuneita tuskin on liikaa, jos yhtään). --Päivi Meriläinen 21:12, 6 September 2012 (EEST)

  • Constrains and assumptions
  • AG meetings will review of the project on a regular basis. However, should any difficulties arise; partners involved will immediately inform the responsible action leader.

Expected results

  • Measurement and documentation of the effectiveness of the project actions as compared to the initial situation, objectives and expected results.

Main indicators

  • web-site – nettipohjainen kysely kohteena olleille vesilaitoksille ja muillekin ?
  • mid-term reports – itsearviointi – kokemusten kerääminen – työn edistymisen arviointi
  • evaluation results in all phases


  • Budget:
    • Personnel
Role in project Daily rate Number of person days Direct personnel costs
Senior researcher 400
Researcher 250
Computer designer 250
Project co-ordinator 205
Laboratory supervisor 265
Senior laboratory technician 215
Laborant 190
Total personnel costs
    • Travel and subsistence
Destination Purpose, number of trips and persons travelling Travel costs Subsistence Travel and subsistence
Total
    • External assistance
Description Costs
Total
    • Consumables
Description Costs
Total
    • Other costs
Description Costs
Total
    • Total
Budget breakdown categories Eligible costs % of eligible costs
Personnel
External assistance
Travel and subsistence
Consumables
Other costs
Overheads
Total

Action 2: Climate policy implementation

  • Leader: Jouni Tuomisto/Mikko Pohjola/Sami Majaniemi/someone from a municipality?
  • Objectives:
    • To provide tools and support to make climate policy implementation plans.
    • To make implementation plans for three municpalities using open assessment.
  • Tasks and person-months:
    • Support XX pm
    • Plan Kuopio XX pm?
    • Plan Lahti XX pm?
    • Plan HSY XX pm?
    • Plan Rauma XX pm?
    • Plan Mikkeli XX pm?
    • Plan Y XX pm?
  • Budget:
    • Personnel
Role in project Daily rate Number of person days Direct personnel costs
Senior researcher 400
Researcher 250
Computer designer 250
Project co-ordinator 205
Laboratory supervisor 265
Senior laboratory technician 215
Laborant 190
Total personnel costs
    • Travel and subsistence
Destination Purpose, number of trips and persons travelling Travel costs Subsistence Travel and subsistence
Total
    • External assistance
Description Costs
Total
    • Consumables
Description Costs
Total
    • Other costs
Description Costs
Total
    • Total
Budget breakdown categories Eligible costs % of eligible costs
Personnel
External assistance
Travel and subsistence
Consumables
Other costs
Overheads
Total

Action 3: Open assessment

  • Leader: Juha Villman/Einari Happonen?
  • Objectives:
    • To give generic method support and provide technical functionalities
  • Tasks and person-months:
  • Budget:
    • Personnel
Role in project Daily rate Number of person days Direct personnel costs
Senior researcher 400
Researcher 250
Computer designer 250
Project co-ordinator 205
Laboratory supervisor 265
Senior laboratory technician 215
Laborant 190
Total personnel costs
    • Travel and subsistence
Destination Purpose, number of trips and persons travelling Travel costs Subsistence Travel and subsistence
Total
    • External assistance
Description Costs
Total
    • Consumables
Description Costs
Total
    • Other costs
Description Costs
Total
    • Total
Budget breakdown categories Eligible costs % of eligible costs
Personnel
External assistance
Travel and subsistence
Consumables
Other costs
Overheads
Total

Action 4: Dissemination and external partner support

  • Leader: Päivi Meriläinen
  • Objectives:
    • To make the project widely known and attractive.
    • To recruit and give support to external partners (organisations that are not partners of the project).
  • Tasks and person-months:
  • Budget:
    • Personnel
Role in project Daily rate Number of person days Direct personnel costs
Senior researcher 400
Researcher 250
Computer designer 250
Project co-ordinator 205
Laboratory supervisor 265
Senior laboratory technician 215
Laborant 190
Total personnel costs
    • Travel and subsistence
Destination Purpose, number of trips and persons travelling Travel costs Subsistence Travel and subsistence
Total
    • External assistance
Description Costs
Translation of material
Design of material
Total
Total
Total
Total
    • Consumables
Description Costs
Printing of material
Total
Total
    • Other costs
Description Costs
Total
    • Total
Budget breakdown categories Eligible costs % of eligible costs
Personnel
External assistance
Travel and subsistence
Consumables
Other costs
Overheads
Total

Action 5: Management

The work in task 5.1 will continue during the whole duration of the project.

The management structure consist of a Project Manager, a Project Coordinator and a Steering Board. There is a sketch about the organization of ORACLE in figure 5.1.

the Project Manager

The Project Manager will work as a the contact person towards policy makers and other stakeholders. He will be administrating the overall budget and financial tasks of ORACLE. He will ensure that all operative tasks are met in compliance with agreed time schedules and resource allocations. He will perform the needed adjustments to them. He will be chairing the Steering Board and monitoring and implementing the decisions done in Steering board meetings.

The technical coordination of the actions will be done by the Project Manager. He will ensure the smooth and efficient information flow between the actions.

Dr. Jouni Tuomisto will be the Project Manager.

the Project Coordinator

The Project Coordinator will collect, review and distribute information about the progress of the planned activities, milestones and deliverables. She will be collecting documents for reports and edit them to final form and report the financial statements and related certification to the European Commission. She will arrange the project workshops and the Steering Board meetings. She will prepare agendas and meeting minutes for the Steering Board meetings.

Ms. Laura Hiltunen will be the Project Coordinator.

the Steering Board

The Steering Board will be in charge of operational management and supervisory body for the execution of project ORACLE. The Steering Board will ensure the sufficient work and data flow between the actions. The Steering board shall be responsible for deciding the technical roadmaps and providing relevant data for the reporting.

The Steering Board will meet every six months. Before every meeting the Steering Board members will collect information about the status of different tasks, milestones and deliverables. The members of the Steering Board are listed in table 5.1.

Partner Name of member Role
THL Jouni Tuomisto Chair
THL Laura Hiltunen Secretary


  • Budget:
    • Personnel
Role in project Daily rate Number of person days Direct personnel costs
Senior researcher 400
Project coordinator 205
Total personnel costs
    • Travel and subsistence
Destination Purpose, number of trips and persons travelling Travel costs Subsistence Travel and subsistence
Total
    • External assistance
Description Costs
Steering board teleconferences
Total
    • Consumables
Description Costs
Total
    • Other costs
Description Costs
Catering for the Steering Board meetings
Total
    • Total
Budget breakdown categories Eligible costs % of eligible costs
Personnel
External assistance
Travel and subsistence
Consumables
Other costs
Overheads
Total

Action 6: Audit

  • Leader: Jouni Tuomisto, deputy: Laura Hiltunen
  • Objectives:
    • Financial audit of project costs.
  • Budget:
    • External assistance
Description Costs
Total
    • Total
Budget breakdown categories Eligible costs % of eligible costs
Personnel
External assistance
Travel and subsistence
Consumables
Other costs
Overheads
Total


DELIVERABLE PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT

Name of the Deliverable Number of the associated action Deadline


MILESTONES OF THE PROJECT

Name of the Milestone Number of the associated action Deadline


ACTIVITY REPORTS FORESEEN

  • Inception Report (to be delivered within 9 months after the project start);
  • Progress Reports n°1, n°2 etc. (if any; to ensure that the delay between consecutive reports does not exceed 18 months);
  • Mid-term Report with payment request (only for project longer than 24 months)
  • Final Report with payment request (to be delivered within 3 months after the end of the project)

Please indicate the deadlines for the following reports:Type of report Deadline

Type of report Deadline
Inception report 31.3.2014
Progress report 31.3.2015
Mid-term report 31.3.2016
Final report 30.9.2017
Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=Talk:Life%2B&oldid=26214"