Generated automatically from |
CHORALE will be implemented through twelve closely interconnected work packages addressing advances in hydrological process representation, coordinated Earth system model development and experimentation, assessment of climate and societal implications, science-policy integration, and the coordination and infrastructure functions underpinning the project (Figure 3.1). The work plan follows a Lump Sum approach, with activities organised into clearly defined work packages, deliverables, milestones and three reporting periods that provide a transparent framework for monitoring progress and delivery. CNR acts as the scientific, administrative and contractual coordinator of the action. WEMC contributes proven expertise in project coordination, consortium management and science-policy engagement, supporting the efficient delivery of CHORALE activities and outcomes. CINECA contributes state-of-the-art expertise in HPC, data management and digital research infrastructures, enabling the integrated computational and data environment required by CHORALE. Together, these elements ensure effective integration of expertise across the consortium, efficient use of resources and the successful delivery of project outcomes. Governance bodies and procedures are better described in WP10-12 (T10.2).
The work plan turns the seven methodological pillars (Section 1.2) into the 12 work packages as follows:
RP1 – Constrain and set up (M1–M18). WP1 assembles the observational constraints, diagnostics and benchmarks (Pillar 2; D1.1–D1.3). WP2 and WP3 start the hydrological and plant-process developments (Pillars 3–5). WP4 sets up the integration framework and testbed protocols shared by all modelling groups (Pillar 1; T4.1, D4.1), and WP5 defines the common production protocols and the Coordinated Simulation Matrix (T5.1, D5.1).
Figure 3.1. CHORALE PERT diagram: (a) interlocking technical WPs (WP1–WP6) within the transversal WP7–9 and WP10–12; (b) zoom on the modelling core (WP2–WP4) and its interfaces with WP1, WP5 and WP7–9.
RP2 – Develop, qualify and produce the historical baseline (M19–M36). WP2 and WP3 deliver portable developments (D2.1–D2.4, D3.1–D3.3), which WP4 evaluates offline and in coupled prototypes, feeding refinements back and recording what transfers between models in the Development and Transferability Matrix (D4.3; Figure 1.2). WP5 runs the offline and historical production with the qualified configurations (MS4.2; T5.2; Pillar 6) and fixes the Phase 1 scenario at MS5.1 (M29). WP6 starts evaluating the offline simulations and the historical experiments (T6.1).
RP3 – Project and assess (M37–M54). WP5 completes the Phase 1 and Phase 2 future, irrigation and regreening coordinated experiments (D5.4, D5.5), with the Phase 2 scenario fixed at MS5.2 (M39) and delivers paired global-regional and convection-permitting datasets, together with the associated AI-downscaling products (D5.6; Figure 1.3). WP6 quantifies Water–Energy–Carbon feedback, regreening feasibility and irrigation trade-offs, and verifies land–atmosphere coupling across scales (T6.2–T6.4; Pillar 7).
Figure 3.2. CHORALE Gantt chart. Task durations over the 54 months, with the deliverables (Table 3.1c) and milestones (Table 3.1d) of each work package and the ends of the three reporting periods.
Transversal work packages. WP7-9 ensure that CHORALE’s scientific advances are translated into policy-relevant knowledge through impact assessment, alignment with international climate initiatives, and stakeholder engagement, dissemination and exploitation activities. WP10–12 provide coordination, governance, management, quality assurance, the shared HPC and analysis environment, including the project repository (T10.4, T10.5).
The workplan is shown in the PERT diagram (Figure 3.1): Observational constraints from WP1 feed the developments in WP2 and WP3 and the benchmarks used in WP4. WP4 returns refinements to WP2 and WP3 and passes qualified configurations to WP5, whose simulation datasets are analysed in WP6. WP7–9 bring stakeholder input into the scenario decisions and carry the evidence to users, while WP10-12 support all work packages. Figure 3.2 (Gantt chart) gives the timing of tasks, deliverables and milestones, and Table 3.1a lists the work packages. Each WP has a lead (shown first), responsible for reporting and delivery, and a co-lead to ensure shared ownership, operational continuity and effective coordination. Project coordination and management is led by CNR with co-leadership from WEMC (management) and CINECA (for support on the shared infrastructure and HPC).
Milestones and deliverables. Tables 3.1c and 3.1d list the key deliverables and milestones, organised by reporting period. Each deliverable has a defined type, dissemination level, and delivery date, with clear means of verification. Milestones are designed as control points that confirm the achievement of critical results before subsequent phases begin – a requirement for effective lump sum management.
Risk management. Table 3.1e presents the critical risks identified during proposal preparation, together with their likelihood, severity, and mitigation measures. The risks cover both project implementation aspects (e.g., data retrieval, HPC interoperability, model underperformance) and project management aspects (e.g., partner underperformance, stakeholder engagement, geopolitical instability). Each risk is owned by the lead of the first WP listed against it in Table 3.1e, who monitors it and reports its status at the quarterly risk-register review; cross-cutting management risks are owned by the Coordinator.
Resources and effort. Table 3.1f summarises the staff effort across all WPs and partners. The total effort is 947.7 person-months, distributed across 15 beneficiaries, equivalent to 17.55 FTEs over 54 months. Effort is concentrated in technical WPs (WP1-6, ~80%), and dissemination plus coordination (WP7-12, ~20%).
Table 3.1a: List of work packages
| WP | Work Package Title | Lead/co-lead by | PMs | Start | End |
| 1 | Observational constraints, diagnostics, and benchmarks | 4-UREAD/1-CNR | 82.5 | 1 | 18 |
| 2 | Integrated hydrology: scale-aware and time-variable representation of key hydrological processes | 6-UNIBO/7-TU Delft | 160 | 1 | 36 |
| 3 | Plant processes and ecosystem responses under ecohydrological stress | 9-CICERO/5-IMPERIAL | 113.7 | 1 | 36 |
| 4 | Interdisciplinary co-development, process testbed and configuration readiness | 3-ECMWF/1-CNR | 139 | 1 | 36 |
| 5 | Coordinated simulation protocols, experiment delivery and cross-scale verification | 12-UQAM/1-CNR | 132 | 1 | 48 |
| 6 | Analysis of Water–Energy–Carbon feedbacks and Earth system responses to land-based mitigation and adaptation pathways in ensemble projections | 11-VUB/8-ULUND | 129.5 | 20 | 54 |
| 7-9 | Policy and assessment interface, dissemination, exploitation and communication | 2-WEMC/14-CYI | 93.5 | 1 | 54 |
| 10-12 | Project coordination, management, implementation governance and shared infrastructure/HPC support | 1-CNR/2-WEMC/13-CINECA | 97.5 | 1 | 54 |
Person-month totals per task (shown in each WP table) reflect contributions from senior scientists, junior scientists and technical personnel, with the overall distribution per WP detailed by seniority in Part A. Task leadership is indicated in each task description, with the lead partner named first in bold.
Table 3.1b: Work package description
| Work package number | 1 | Lead (co-lead) | UREAD (CNR) |
| Work package title | Observational constraints, diagnostics, and benchmarks | ||
| Objectives: WP1 is the observational and process-diagnostic foundation of CHORALE with three specific objectives. (1) Establish a coordinated observational framework with fit-for-purpose EO and in situ datasets and documented uncertainty; (2) Develop uncertainty-aware process diagnostics for vegetation, land–atmosphere coupling and hydrology; (3) Deliver model-ready references and workflows for model development, benchmarking, and coordinated experiments in WP2, WP4 and WP5. |
T1.1 Observational data requirements, selection and provisioning [M1–M18; CINECA 17PM, UREAD 4PM, CNR 2PM, TUDelft 1PM, VUB 1PM, UNIBO 1PM, ECMWF 0.5PM, Tot 26.5PM] This task will define and provide the common observational framework for model development, benchmarking and validation. Dataset requirements, fitness for purpose, uncertainty, provenance and independence will be agreed with T1.2–T1.3. CINECA will curate standardised, model-ready references and reproducible workflows in the shared analysis environment, with version control, FAIR publication and links to ESA FutureEO/ESSI activities. Outputs will support WP2–WP6 without duplicating data preparation. ECMWF provides ERA5/ERA5-Land reanalysis and land data-assimilation products as reference data streams for T1.1–T1.3. CINECA will coordinate the technical provisioning, quality screening, and standardization of the selected datasets. Capitalising on data ingestion pipelines, intake catalogues, and containerised deployment recipes inherited from recent European initiatives (such as OptimESM and FUTURA), CINECA will curate and format reference observations into standardized, CMOR-compliant data structures directly ingestible by community evaluation packages (specifically ESMValTool and ILAMB). T1.1 delivers the shared data-staging layer mounted within the WP10-12 interactive analysis environment, providing high-throughput access to the observational baselines used in model development (WP2–WP3), offline process testbeds (WP4), coordinated production experiments (WP5), and historical assessments (WP6). Ingestion scripts, processing workflows, and configuration recipes will be version-controlled in the central project repository (T10.5). Curated benchmark datasets and derived observational products will be deposited in trusted repositories (Zenodo) with Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) in close coordination with the project Data Management Plan (D10.2) and Open Science mandate (§1.6). T1.1 will also coordinate the technical interface with relevant ESA FutureEO and ESSI activities, including the identification and uptake of suitable EO products and workflows, joint technical exchanges and feedback on observational requirements, uncertainties and model-evaluation needs. Of the T1.1 effort, 3 PM (CNR 2 PM, CINECA 1 PM) are dedicated to these collaborative actions with ESA FutureEO and EC–ESA ESSI: the liaison role, the joint technical exchanges and the shared benchmark application listed in Table 2.5. T1.2 Comprehensive benchmark system for vegetation traits and plant-mediated water processes [M1-M18; UREAD 12PM, IMPERIAL 2PM, CICERO 2PM, WEMC 6PM, CNR 8PM, ECMWF 0.5PM, Tot 30.5PM] This task will assemble quality-controlled site and spatial datasets for evaluating vegetation properties, plant-mediated water processes and land–atmosphere coupling. Flux-tower, sap-flow, trait and satellite products will constrain productivity, evapotranspiration, transpiration and vegetation state. UREAD will coordinate the overall benchmark architecture and integration of the observational datasets. WEMC will lead the development and validation of CEFI over Europe and selected water-limited regions, including its refinement to better isolate vegetation water-stress signals, and will contribute climate-service and energy-sector requirements. CNR, IMPERIAL, CICERO and ECMWF will contribute relevant observational datasets, process expertise and model-evaluation requirements, supporting uncertainty characterisation and the applicability of the benchmarks across regions and modelling frameworks. The documented benchmark system will support model development in WP3, coordinated evaluation in WP4 and historical assessment in WP6. Spatially distributed data is required to ensure that improvements in vegetation properties translate into improved land-atmosphere coupling and land-surface hydrology. We will make use of CEFI, an innovative proxy for the spatial and temporal variability of evapotranspiration. It is defined solely based on observations from geostationary satellites, and it implicitly accounts for both the effect of soil moisture stress and VPD on vegetation. This task will develop and validate a version tailored specifically to maximize the CEFI detection rate for the European climate. Moreover, while the CEFI integrates the bulk effect of evapotranspiration and turbulent heat stress that is mostly wind driven, we will provide a level 2 version of the CEFI dataset where the aerodynamic component is filtered out, enhancing the biophysical component that can be directly related to the vegetation drought stress. We will further develop the CEFI concept in the context of a multi-dimensional characterization of drought processes in relationships to observed and reanalysed soil moisture and vegetation productivity proxies. CEFI development will be extended through methodologies developed by CNR to quantify evapotranspiration-temperature feedback and land-atmosphere coupling strength, using process-oriented diagnostics and feedback-based metrics, including the surface feedback index −ΔE/ΔT. As part of this development, we will quantify the observed relationships between the CEFI and the distribution of irrigation. River flow data from the Global Runoff Data Centre will be used for catchment-scale evaluation of runoff across representative catchments. Global evaluations of vegetation will be made using harmonized satellite data on green vegetation cover and solar-induced fluorescence, drawing on the FLEX mission. The fully documented benchmark system will be available for use in WP3 and WP6. T1.3 Observation-constrained water-cycle diagnostics [M1–M18; CNR 12PM, UNIBO 10PM, ECMWF 0.5PM, UREAD 2PM, IMPERIAL 1PM, Tot 25.5PM] This task will develop reproducible, observation-constrained diagnostics of runoff activation and antecedent wetness, water-cycle closure and partitioning, and irrigation-induced soil-moisture variability. CNR will coordinate diagnostic design, EO integration, uncertainty assessment and reproducible workflows. UNIBO will co-develop the catchment-scale runoff-generation and water-cycle-partitioning analyses and connect them to the parameterisations developed in WP2. UREAD and IMPERIAL will ensure consistency with the vegetation and evapotranspiration benchmarks developed in T1.2, while ECMWF will advise on the use of reanalysis reference data and compatibility with ECLand output requirements. Using T1.1 datasets, it will provide definitions, reference relationships, uncertainty and domains of applicability across selected regions and scales. Versioned implementations by M10 will inform WP2 development and WP4 benchmarking and validation protocols. The diagnostics will be implemented over selected study regions and benchmark domains using complementary satellite and ground-based observations. These will include soil-moisture, precipitation and evapotranspiration products; observed river-discharge records from the Global Runoff Data Centre (GRDC), the EStreams dataset and catalogue, and the selected study regions; and, where spatial scale permits, GRACE/GRACE-FO terrestrial-water-storage change. EStreams will complement GRDC by facilitating access to additional European discharge records and associated catchment attributes. For each diagnostic, T1.3 will provide documented definitions and workflows, observational reference relationships or estimates, uncertainty information and domains of applicability. Robustness will be assessed across available observational products, spatial and temporal scales, and contrasting hydroclimatic conditions supported by the data. The resulting diagnostics will provide observational constraints for the hydrological developments in WP2, particularly the scale-aware runoff generation, root-zone storage capacity, groundwater dynamics and irrigation-related parameterisations and will define the hydrological variables and model outputs required for their subsequent benchmarking and validation in WP4. First versioned implementations will be available by M10 (MS1.2) to inform model development and parameterisation in WP2 and preparation of the WP4 evaluation protocols. T1.3 will develop and characterise the diagnostics and observational references, while their systematic application to baseline and CHORALE-enhanced model configurations will be coordinated in WP4. |
| Work package number | 2 |
|---|---|
| Work package title | Integrated hydrology: scale-aware and time-variable representation of key hydrological processes |
| Objectives: WP2 develop, implement, test and evaluate improved representations of four key hydrological processes in ESMs: (1) runoff generation; (2) root-zone storage capacity; (3) groundwater dynamics; and (4) human-managed irrigation. The common aim across all four is to replace static parametrizations with formulations that explicitly account for sub-grid spatial heterogeneity and temporal evolution, thereby reducing systematic biases in simulated water fluxes and improving the physical realism of ESM projections. | |
T2.1 Scale-aware and time-variable representation of runoff generation [M1-M36; UNIBO 36PM, TUDelft 7PM, CNR 1PM, ECMWF 2PM, Tot 46PM] To reduce scale related biases in ESM land-surface schemes, UNIBO, with support from TU Delft and CNR, will develop scale-aware and time-variable parametrizations of runoff generation through modelling the non-linear dependencies of runoff generation on aggregation scale driven by spatial heterogeneities of land cover, soil properties, topography and vegetation. The development follows a sequenced approach: (a) sub-grid variability of individual runoff-generation controls is quantified by relating observation-based river discharge records and water-cycle partitioning estimates (ET/P, Q/P, ΔS/P) from T1.3 to high-resolution EO data across multiple spatial scales and time windows; (b) scaling relationships for runoff generation are derived from observable landscape properties; (c) parametrizations are tested with a distributed rainfall-runoff model against observed river discharge in pilot catchments (e.g., Po and Ebro river basins), at high (≤0.1°) and low (≥0.5°) resolutions. Parameterization schemes will be coded for portability to consortium land-surface schemes, including ECLand (T4.2) with coupled behaviour tested in T4.3 and diagnostic ported to T6.4. T2.2 Scale-aware and time-variable representation of root zone storage capacity [M1-M36; TUDelft 21PM, UNIBO 2.5PM, CNR 3PM, WEMC 6PM, CICERO 1PM, Tot 33.5PM] To better quantify water cycle partitioning on the land surface, controlled by vegetation dynamics and anthropogenic disturbances, TU Delft and CNR will develop and implement scale-aware and time-variable parametrizations of root-zone storage capacity (RZSC) in ECLand. Currently a static parameter, RZSC will be expressed as scalable, evolving prognostic variable generated from simulated cumulative water deficits (van Oorschot et al., 2021), modulated by vegetation water-stress. This will involve: (a) estimating time-variable catchment-scale RZSC and associated uncertainties using moving-window water deficit analysis based on observed hydro-climatic and river discharge data from a globally distributed set of catchments available through T1.3; (b) downscaling of catchment-scale RZSC estimates to multiple grid resolutions using relationships with EO proxies such as LAI and fPAR from T1.3; (c) implementing an adaptive model parametrization scheme generating online grid-scale accumulation of water deficits over moving windows to estimate time-variable RZSC within ECLand; (d) evaluating model-generated time-variable RZSC against observation-based estimates from (a). Deficit closure will account for irrigation supply (T2.4) and uptake from groundwater (T2.3). RZSC as output from T2.2 will be used as diagnostic benchmark for adaptive root depth schemes in T3.4. The parameterization scheme will be coded for portability to other land-surface schemes (T4.2) with coupled behaviour to be tested in T4.3 and the diagnostic ported to T6.4. WEMC assesses how the time-variable RZSC diagnostics can be used in climate-service products and feeds the resulting user requirements back to the parameterisation design. T2.3 Scale-aware and time-variable representation of groundwater dynamics [M1–M36; FZJ 10PM, ECMWF 2.5PM, CNR 11PM, UNIBO 4PM, Tot. 27.5PM] To enhance the feedback representations of shallow groundwater, unconfined-aquifer dynamics, lateral subsurface flow and river routing in the CHORALE ESMs, CNR and UNIBO will jointly develop a Dirichlet-closure coupling at the interface between the unsaturated soil column and an explicit unconfined-aquifer storage for ECLand. The coupling will account for (i) preferential recharge pathways bypassing the soil matrix (T2.1), (ii) direct vegetation uptake from the saturated zone (T3.4); and (iii) irrigation abstraction from the groundwater storage (T2.4). ECMWF, with consultation by FZJ, will couple ECLand–ParFlow to examine the benefits of explicit groundwater dynamics, lateral subsurface flow and surface–subsurface interactions. FZJ will improve the existing eCLM–ParFlow coupling of ICON-TSMP, which provides the physically complete reference against which the portable closures are evaluated (T4.2). Groundwater dynamics will be evaluated against observed water level and river discharge and GRACE/GRACE-FO terrestrial water storage anomalies (T1.3). Parameterization schemes will be coded for portability to consortium land-surface schemes in T4.2 and spin-up protocols will be provided in T5.1. T2.4 Scale-aware and time-variable representation of human-managed irrigation [M1–M36; VUB 8 PM, CNR 8PM, CICERO 5PM, ECMWF 2.5PM, ULUND 2PM, UQAM 7PM, UOT 4PM, UNIBO 16.5PM, Tot 53PM] To account for feedback mechanisms related to human water balance modifications, T2.4 will represent irrigation and its interactions with runoff, root-zone storage and groundwater. VUB will provide irrigation datasets using CLM implementations of parametrizations for sprinkler and flood irrigation, based on Yao et al. (2022, 2025b) and updated to Land Use Harmonization LUH3. VUB's parametrization will be brought into the CESM main code for the WP5 irrigation-enabled runs and made available to the other models through WP4 (T4.4). CNR will test scale-aware irrigation formulations accounting for asynchronous irrigation within heterogeneous grid cells (Modanesi et al. 2026) in ECLand-LPJ-GUESS, distinguishing irrigation activation from the effective amount of water applied per event, and thereby avoiding the resolution-dependent overestimation inherent in conventional uniform-replenishment schemes. Irrigation will also be implemented within this task in the other global models: in NorESM CLM-FATES (CICERO), alongside the CESM crop-area method or in simplified form; in CanESM/CLASSIC as an additional water input, developed by UQAM and implemented in the global model by UOT through CP4C; and in EC-Earth using the LPJ-GUESS version (ULUND), in line with the ECLand developments. UNIBO will assess human-water dynamics by developing time-variable scaling relationships describing how water proximity, urban expansion and irrigation interact (Palazzoli et al., 2022, 2024; Ceola et al., 2019; Fang et al., 2018), supporting T6.2 and T6.4. Formulations will be tested for e.g., the Po and Ebro river basins, to be used for regreening and irrigation sustainability analyses in water-limited regions in WP6. ECMWF will expand the operational hydrological system (Mazzetti et al. 2026) with ground water and irrigation schemes, calibrated using the CaMa-Flood river-discharge and inundation model. |
| Work package number | 3 | Lead (co-lead) | CICERO (IMPERIAL) |
| Work package title | Plant processes and ecosystem responses under ecohydrological stress | ||
| Objectives: WP3 develops and implements eco-evolutionary optimality representations of gas exchange, adaptive phenology and rooting across CHORALE land models. It consolidates EEO-based vegetation theory, and it implements and tests updated theories on gas exchange, plant phenology and adaptive rooting, including vegetation access to groundwater as a control on water stress and its legacy. This objective specifically targets process representation that is critical for carbon-energy-water coupling in semi-arid systems. | |||
T3.1 Development of EEO framework [M1-M24; IMPERIAL 18.7PM, UREAD 12PM, CNR 10PM, ECMWF 2PM, Tot 42.7PM] T3.1 consolidates the EEO framework linking photosynthesis, transpiration, phenology and allocation; and it tests 1) optimality-based predictions of the seasonal cycle of leaf area index (LAI) 2) the impact of soil moisture stress on stomatal and non-stomatal controls on transpiration, 3) a scheme to predict the vertical and temporal distribution of root biomass allocation (adaptive rooting) in response to soil and sub-soil moisture availability, and 4) a scheme linking seasonal biomass production to carbon allocation across different plant organs via representations of non-structural carbohydrate partitioning, storage and release, and leaf flushing and recovery from heat and drought stress. UREAD will test the four schemes as stand-alone formulations against the WP1 observational benchmarks, from the seasonal cycle of LAI and the transpiration response to soil moisture stress to root distribution and carbon allocation under heat and drought stress, while IMPERIAL consolidates the EEO framework and develops and codes the schemes. These developments of the theoretical basis of EEO theory will feed forward into in T3.2, 3.3 and 3.4. T3.2 Implementation of gas exchange process improvements [M1–M36; CICERO 9PM, IMPERIAL 5PM, CNR 3PM, UQAM 10PM, UOT 4PM, Tot 31PM] This task will integrate EEO-based representations of the acclimation of photosynthetic capacity and stomatal conductance into ECLand-LPJGUESS-P+ and the demography-enabled CLM-FATES model. In FATES, we will use EEP to predict gas exchange rates across a diversity of plant water uptake, drought survival strategies, providing a link between EEO and trait filtering competitive approaches. The default and new gas exchange schemes will be constrained against site-based datasets and trait database of photosynthetic parameters (e.g.,Vcmax) curated in WP1 (T1.2) and UQAM will compare it with gas exchange predictions from the CLASSIC-SOX hydrodynamic model (Umair et al. 2026) and CICERO with the default FATES-HYDRO scheme (Xu et al. 2023). UOT will account for the implementation and testing of SOX at the global scale in CanESM through CP4C. T3.3 Implementation of adaptive plant phenology schemes [M1–M36; ULUND 5PM, UREAD 4PM, IMPERIAL 3PM, CNR 3PM, VUB 1PM, Tot 16PM] This task implements the EEO scheme to predict the seasonal cycle of LAI in ECLand-LPJ-GUESS-P+. The prognostic phenology scheme (Zhou et al., 2025) is based on the EEO concept that the seasonal time course of LAI is coordinated with variations in gross primary production (GPP), where seasonal maximum LAI is the lesser of an energy-limited rate and a water-limited rate. Alternative phenology schemes will be tested against EO and site-based datasets (WP1), including a development of crop phenology under heat stress (VUB) and alternative approach for high-latitude regions (Chen et al. 2024). CNR will account for the testing of the phenology scheme in the global configuration of EC-Earth. T3.4 Implementation of adaptive rooting depth schemes [M1–M36; CICERO 8PM, IMPERIAL 3PM, ULUND 5PM, TUDelft 2PM, CNR 6PM, Tot. 24PM] This task will implement adaptive root allocation in CLM-FATES (CICERO) and ECLand LPJ-GUESS-P+. (ULUND). The default and adaptive root allocation schemes will be tested against site data from WP1 (T1.2), and time-variable predictions of root zone soil water capacity. Phreatophytic behaviour (plants usage of groundwater) will emerge from this scheme from the memory of past water deficits (van Oorschot et al., 2021). WP4 will jointly assess the aquifer–vegetation interface and the interaction of adaptive root depth with root zone soil capacity from T2.2. CNR will implement and test adaptive rooting and groundwater access in ECLand-LPJ-Guess-P+, linking the scheme to the T2.3 groundwater developments. |
| Work package number | 4 | Lead (co-lead) | ECMWF (CNR) |
| Work package title | Interdisciplinary co-development, process testbed and configuration readiness | ||
| Objectives: WP4 is the integration and qualification layer of CHORALE. It has three specific objectives: (1) to coordinate the interdisciplinary integration and evaluation of hydrological and ecosystem developments from WP2 and WP3, and to co-develop cross-cutting representations at their interfaces; (2) to operate a common offline process testbed and reduced-cost coupled prototypes to assess physical consistency, process interactions and technical readiness; and (3) to establish transferability and provide WP5 with justified production configurations, documented limitations and qualified fall-backs. | |||
T4.1 Integration framework, interdisciplinary interfaces and testbed protocols [M1–M15; CICERO 7PM; CNR 7.5PM, ECMWF 4PM, UNIBO 5PM, ULUND 1PM, TUDelft 4PM, UQAM 6PM, UOT 2PM, FZJ 1PM, CYI 2PM, Tot 39.5PM] T4.1 will identify the scientific interfaces and common process constraints across WP1-WP3 and translate the Pillar 1 co-development methodology into shared benchmarking and validation protocols. It will define shared evaluation questions, model-specific reference configurations, observational constraints, testbed classes and reporting criteria. Joint evaluations will be prioritised only where developments share physical controls, including the interface between WP2 root-zone storage and groundwater developments and T3.4 adaptive rooting. The testbed will use the minimum complexity needed for each question, drawing selectively on site, regional or global offline configurations and portable community evaluation workflows. With T5.1, T4.1 will define the reduced-cost prescribed-ocean atmosphere-land prototypes, readiness criteria and common requirements for configuration selection and fall-back documentation. T4.1 will also establish the initial Development and Transferability Matrix, recording originating implementations, attempted transfer targets, scientific interfaces, dependencies, evaluation requirements and indicative entry points for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 configuration decisions. Attempted transfers will be distinguished from committed implementations: they represent a willingness to test a transferred development, not a commitment to deliver it, and their status will be updated as evidence becomes available. These outputs will be delivered through D4.1, which establishes the common pathway for consistent evaluation and evidence-based configuration selection for WP5, and support MS4.1, which confirms that the common testbeds, benchmarking protocols, reference configurations and observational constraints are operational across the participating modelling frameworks. FZJ and CYI bring the ICON-TSMP and WRF regional configurations into the shared protocols (T4.1–T4.4), so that the regional systems are evaluated and qualified with the same criteria as the global models. T4.2 Offline process evaluation, cross-constraints and iterative refinement [M8–M34; ECMWF 9PM, CNR 4.5PM, CICERO 5PM, VUB 2.5PM, ULUND 3PM, TUDelft 3PM, UNIBO 5PM, UREAD 8PM, UOT 2PM, FZJ 1.5PM, CYI 2PM, IMPERIAL 5PM, Tot 50.5PM] T4.2 will evaluate WP2 and WP3 developments on a rolling basis against model-specific reference configurations using WP1 observations and diagnostics. Initial screening will assess performance, physical consistency, uncertainty, and hydrological and ecosystem implications. Only prioritised combinations identified in T4.1 will be tested jointly to determine whether their effects are complementary, redundant or compensating. T4.2 will investigate potential cross-cutting representations combining WP2 and WP3 developments at their shared interfaces (Figure 1.2, dashed lines, or later prioritised using the T4.1 criteria) and, where scientifically justified, co-develop them. Evidence will be consolidated at two points: the first Matrix snapshot will support selection of the Phase 1 configurations at M21 (MS4.2), while a subsequent update will incorporate later-maturing and cross-cutting developments, adaptations and cross-process evaluations for the Phase 2 configuration decision at M34 (MS4.4). Development will continue to M36, with explicit fall-backs retained where a development is not ready. Results will guide refinement in WP2 and WP3 and identify a limited number of scientifically justified configurations for coupled prototype testing. Developments that do not progress will remain documented outcomes, with their limitations and domains of applicability recorded in the Development and Transferability Matrix. The offline and interdisciplinary evidence will form the first component of D4.2 and support MS4.2. T4.3 Coupled prototype integrations and configuration readiness [M20–M33, CINECA 20PM, CNR 4PM, ULUND 2PM, VUB 2.5PM, ECMWF 6PM, FZJ 1.5PM, CYI 2PM, Tot 38PM] T4.3 will evaluate the configurations selected from T4.2 in reduced-cost prescribed-ocean atmosphere-land prototypes. These integrations will test whether improvements and process interactions identified offline persist under coupling, quantify relevant Water-Energy-Carbon responses and land-atmosphere feedback, and identify compensating errors or model-dependent responses requiring further refinement. The same integrations will assess numerical stability, drift, spin-up, throughput and failure modes. Prototype length, resolution and ensemble size will be limited to the minimum needed for scientific and technical qualification, avoiding duplication of the full WP5 production experiments. Coupled-prototype evidence will be entered into the Matrix as it becomes available and will support confirmation or revision of readiness classifications for the Phase 2 configuration decision at M34. Phase 1 configurations may be superseded by more mature developments evaluated before this decision. Each modelling group will use the evidence to justify its WP5 production configuration, record uncertainties and limitations, and document a qualified fall-back. The coupled and technical qualification evidence will complete D4.2 and support MS4.3. T4.4 Transferability, applicability and portability synthesis [M24–M36; CNR 7PM, ECMWF 2PM, FZJ 1PM, CYI 1PM, Tot 11PM] T4.4 will maintain and synthesise the Development and Transferability Matrix initiated in T4.1 and progressively populated through T4.2 and T4.3. For each prioritised development and participating model, the Matrix will record the originating implementation, attempted and completed transfer pathways (including, for split cells, the comparison with the model’s own formulation), the cross-cutting combinations investigated in T4.2, whether envisaged in Figure 1.2 or prioritised during the project using the T4.1 criteria, implementation and evaluation status, prototype and production-readiness outcomes, dependencies, required adaptations, applicability limits, provenance, production uptake and fall-back pathways. Developments will be classified as i) directly transferable, ii) transferable with model-specific adaptation or at the level of scientific concept or process constraint, or iii) model- or context-specific (i.e. non-transferable). The assessment will distinguish the transferability of scientific concepts and process constraints from direct portability of parameterisations, algorithms and code. Where wider uptake is justified by the evidence, T4.4 will coordinate focused portability packages containing the essential implementation guidance, configuration information, tests and provenance required for reuse. Packaging will be limited to developments demonstrating clear transfer potential, keeping effort proportionate. D4.3 will deliver the completed Matrix, prototype and production-readiness record and portability synthesis. |
| Work package number | 5 | Lead (co-lead) | UQAM (CNR) |
| Work package title | Coordinated simulation protocols, experiment delivery and cross-scale verification | ||
| Objectives: WP5 coordinate and deliver the full CHORALE simulation portfolio, translating the modelling developments and qualified model configurations produced in WP2-WP4 into a coherent and quality-controlled set of simulations that provides the common backbone for scientific evaluation and assessment in WP6. This includes: (i) establishing harmonized production protocols and a Coordinated Simulation Matrix across participating modelling systems; (ii) delivering standardized historical simulations based on WP4-qualified model configurations; (iii) coordinating future production simulations, including reference, irrigation-attribution and regreening experiments; (iv) producing a targeted set of paired global-regional and convection-permitting simulations for cross-scale analysis and downscaling applications; and (v) ensuring the provision of standardized, traceable datasets and metadata to support activities in WP6-WP9. | |||
T5.1: Coordinated protocols and simulation matrix [M1–M18; UQAM, 8.5PM; UOT 7PM, FZJ 2PM, VUB 1PM, CNR 4PM, CICERO 4PM, ULUND 1PM, CYI 4PM, CINECA 3PM, Tot 34.5PM] This task will establish the common production protocol framework and Coordinated Simulation Matrix using WP4 prototype configurations as they become available (qualified configurations from MS4.2 onwards). It will (i) define the experiment architecture; (ii) specify common forcing and land-surface input requirements, experiment periods, initialization and spin-up procedures, ensemble strategy, output variables and temporal frequency; (iii) define procedures for handling model branches, baseline configurations and evolving model versions during the production; (iv) establish production-level quality-control, metadata and provenance; (v) define the handover requirements from WP4 and document the production-ready configurations prepared by each modelling group and information required for coordinated implementation; (vi) establish common protocols for the irrigation and regreening experiments, allowing model-specific implementation where required by land-model capabilities; (vii) define the paired global–regional experiment framework including the approximately 12 km EURO-CORDEX and MENA-CORDEX simulations and the selected convection-permitting subdomain cases nested within the CORDEX domains, together with requirements for the associated AI-based downscaling; (viii) coordinate implementation of the production matrix across participating modelling centres. T5.2: Coordinated offline and historical production experiments [M19–M31; CNR 12PM, UQAM 3.5PM, UOT 6.5PM, FZJ 4PM, VUB 4PM, CICERO 6PM, ULUND 2.5PM, CINECA 2PM, Tot 40.5PM] This task will coordinate the progressive delivery of offline production simulations and the coordinated coupled historical simulations using model configurations as they become production-ready through WP4. Offline simulations will be produced for each individual development and for a combined configuration including all developments, allowing their individual and integrated effects to be assessed relative to the standard model configuration. They will be made available to WP6 for early analysis. Coupled historical simulations will then be coordinated using the qualified configurations and common experiment design. The task will (i) coordinate standardized offline simulations using the common forcing and production protocols; (ii) coordinate forcing preparation, initialization, spin-up and technical verification for each production configuration; (iii) coordinate the coupled historical simulations and ensemble sampling, with multiple members used where feasible to characterize internal variability; (iv) ensure consistency of simulation periods, forcing, initialization, spin-up and output requirements across participating modelling systems; (v) apply production-level quality control, metadata and provenance requirements; and (vi) deliver the standardized offline and coupled historical datasets to WP6 and relevant downstream activities in WP7-9. The set of coordinated offline simulations will be available by M24, supporting early WP6 analysis, while the complete set of required coupled historical production runs based on the Phase 1 qualified configurations will be completed and delivered by M31. T5.3: Coordinated future production, land-management experiments, paired high-resolution simulations and AI-enabled downscaling [M30–M48; UQAM 8PM, UOT 6.5PM, FZJ 6PM, VUB 4PM, CICERO 3PM, CNR 8PM, CINECA 5PM, ULUND 3.5PM, CYI 13PM, Tot 57PM] This task will deliver the coordinated future simulations, land-management experiments and paired global–regional and convection-permitting simulations defined in Section 1.2. The first months of the task are devoted to preparation: forcing, experiment set-up and workflows; production runs start once the Phase 1 scenario is fixed (MS5.1) and the corresponding configurations are qualified (MS4.2). The two production phases will be advanced as far as practicable within the project schedule: Phase 1 will deliver the agreed future reference, irrigation-attribution and regreening experiments, while Phase 2 will use the low-emission scenario and the configurations selected at MS4.4. Regional production will include ~12-km EURO-CORDEX and MENA-CORDEX simulations, with two selected cases represented at convection-permitting resolution by at least two modelling systems where feasible. Regional CORDEX-domain simulations will be driven by the corresponding global Phase 1 experiments, while selected convection-permitting cases, configured at MS5.2, will be nested within the CORDEX domains and initiated progressively as the required regional output becomes available. The resulting paired global-regional and convection-permitting datasets will support cross-scale analysis and AI-enabled downscaling, while scientific assessment remains in WP6. Common quality control, metadata, provenance and data-delivery procedures will be applied throughout. |
| Work package number | 6 | Lead (co-lead) | VUB (ULUND) |
| Work package title | Analysis of Water–Energy–Carbon feedbacks and Earth system responses to land-based mitigation and adaptation pathways in ensemble projections | ||
| Objectives: WP6 will analyse the Earth system responses to the irrigation and regreening pathways implemented in WP5, focusing on Water–Energy–Carbon (WEC) feedback, extreme events and impacts. First, it will assess the models’ ability to reproduce historical patterns of complex extremes and the strength of the underlying land–atmosphere WEC couplings, using benchmarks and diagnostics from WP1 and WP4. Second, projected biophysical and societally relevant impacts of the land-use trajectories will be assessed, including water- and heat-related risks, associated changes in moisture recycling, water availability and terrestrial water storage, uncovering local and remote adaptation trade-offs and synergies. Finally, fully coupled Earth System responses will be unravelled by analysing WEC feedback across background emission pathways, assessing potential benefits and unintended consequences of land-use policies as a land-based mitigation tool. These assessments will determine the viability of irrigation and regreening policies and will provide the evidence base for CHORALE's post-AR7 knowledge products, while testing cross-scale physical consistency against the regional and selected convection-permitting nests. Analysis will proceed progressively as WP5 future datasets become available, with the complete Phase 1 dataset available by M39 and the complete Phase 2 dataset by M48. | |||
T6.1: Historical evaluation of complex extremes and WEC feedbacks in historical ESM simulations [M20–M36; CNR 9PM, ULUND 3PM, CICERO 2PM, VUB 2.5PM, CYI 2.5PM, IMPERIAL 2PM, UREAD 6PM, UOT 7PM, UQAM 1.5PM, Tot 35.5PM] This task will evaluate the ability of the CHORALE ESMs to represent complex dynamics of weather and climate extremes, including multivariate drought-heat events, multi-year droughts, temporally compounding heatwaves, and teleconnected extremes. In parallel, the WEC feedback will be evaluated over the historical period using coupling metrics linking soil moisture, evapotranspiration, surface energy partitioning and gross primary productivity. The land-only simulations delivered progressively through T5.2 will support early evaluation of the individual developments, while the coordinated coupled historical simulations delivered through D5.3 will provide the basis for the complete historical assessment of model performance, extremes and WEC feedback. Early analyses will begin as soon as the first offline datasets become available at M24, while the complete historical production will be assessed following the D5.3 delivery at M31. The historical evaluation will establish which complex extremes and land–atmosphere feedbacks are credibly represented by each model and can therefore be analysed with confidence in the future irrigation and regreening experiments. It will also assess the representation of relevant large-scale circulation and moisture-transport patterns, including teleconnected behaviour across monsoon–desert transition regions, thereby providing the historical credibility basis for the projected-impact and cross-scale analyses undertaken in Tasks 6.2–6.4. T6.2. Projected biophysical impacts from regreening and irrigation pathways [M30-M54; VUB 12 PM, ULUND 2PM, UQAM 1PM, FZJ 1PM, CYI 4.5PM, CNR 6.5PM, CICERO 2PM, UNIBO 2PM, Tot 31PM] This task will assess the projected impacts of regreening- and irrigation-induced impacts on complex extremes (that are found credibly represented in T6.1). In addition to the simulations produced under T5.3, it will include all additional models that performed WP5 simulations as part of their voluntary contribution to IRRMIP2 and ISIMIP4 (where available). Using the intelligent simulation design (T5.1; Figure 1.3), the effects of anthropogenic climate forcing, irrigation, and regreening will be isolated under historical and future conditions, with specific attention given to impacts on the frequency, intensity and persistence of dry- and moist-heat extremes across water-limited hotspots. Heat stress metrics such as the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature and the Heat Index will be computed from high-frequency (daily or sub-daily) ESM output following the approach of Yao et al. (2025a). CESM and NorESM provide a suite of 15 heat stress metrics covering heat stress impacts on humans, livestock, critical infrastructure and aircrafts (Buzan et al., 2015). The Dem4Cli package (Pietroiusti et al., 2026) will enable the quantification of cohort-specific lifetime exposure to heat stress condition above specified risk thresholds. Exposure will also be reported separately for women and men, by combining our results with sex- and age-disaggregated population data (Section 1.5). Beyond heat stress, analyses of simulated crop yields and irrigation water demands (T2.4) will improve the assessment of how climate and irrigation pathways affect agricultural resilience, water demand, and productivity. Finally, it will assess non-local impacts on heat and water stress across teleconnected regions. T6.3. Fully coupled future WEC feedback, regreening feasibility and irrigation trade-offs [M30–M54; ULUND 7PM, UREAD, 5.5PM, IMPERIAL 5PM, FZJ 1PM, VUB 2.5PM, CICERO 2PM, CNR 6.5PM, Tot 29.5PM] By comparing the historical (2002–2021) and future (e.g. 2081–2100) periods across the different WP5 experiments, we will assess how the project’s improvements in the representation of the WEC feedback (WP2-3) change the evaluation of the feasibility, hydrological sustainability, trade-offs, and possible unintended consequences of land-based mitigation and adaptation pathways. Examples of Earth system responses include an assessment of the terrestrial carbon cycle response and associated changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and surface air temperatures. We will quantify the dependency of the land management effects on the background emission pathway, to identify potential synergies or trade-offs between fossil fuel phase-out and land-based mitigation (e.g. mediated through bio-geophysical effects). Wherever appropriate, analysis of CHORALE experiments will be supplemented with additional model data, e.g. provided through CMIP, CORDEX, or FUTURA. Overall, these analyses will assess the effective future potential of irrigation and regreening pathways for climate mitigation. T6.4. Cross-scale verification of land–atmosphere coupling and WEC feedback [M36–M54; ECMWF 6PM; FZJ 4PM, VUB 2PM, CNR 1PM, CYI 3PM, UQAM 2.5PM, TUDelft 8PM, UNIBO 7PM, Tot 33.5PM] This task will compare paired global-regional and convection-permitting simulations to determine whether land–atmosphere coupling, WEC feedback and irrigation/regreening responses remain physically consistent as resolution increases. It will identify resolved processes responsible for divergence, qualify regional water-requirement estimates and provide benchmark datasets for AI downscaling using common WP1–WP4 diagnostics. Analysis will begin with the available historical paired datasets and expand to future nests as the required driving fields and regional outputs become available. The analysis will test whether coupling metrics retain their sign and magnitude, whether land-management responses are amplified or suppressed when convection and moisture recycling are resolved, and how regional water requirements depend on scale, evidence that qualifies the global results reported in T6.2 and T6.3 and supplies the paired global-regional and convection-permitting training and verification datasets used by the AI-enabled downscaling developed in T5.3. Analysis is carried out through the shared analysis environment of WP10-12, using the common diagnostics and benchmarking workflows established in WP1, WP2 and WP4, so that global and nested results are evaluated with identical tooling. Outcomes are reported in D6.3 and consolidated in D6.4. Analysis of the GEM and WRF regional climate simulations will verify the cross-scale robustness of the results. |
| Work package number | 7-9 | Lead (co-lead) | WEMC (CYI) | |
| Work package title | Policy and assessment interface, dissemination, exploitation and communication | |||
| Objectives: Ensure CHORALE is relevant to climate adaptation and mitigation policy needs at national, regional and international scales, align the project with international scientific climate assessment and coordination initiatives and research agendas, and enable stakeholder engagement, dissemination and exploitation throughout the project. The three work packages share these objectives and the tasks outlined below; each covers one reporting period (WP7: M1-M18; WP8: M19-M36; WP9: M37-M54). | ||||
T7.1/T8.1/T9.1 Stakeholder engagement, dissemination, exploitation and communication plan [M1-M6/ M19-M21/M37-M39; WEMC 4PM; CNR 2PM, CYI 2.5PM, Tot 8.5PM] This task will establish the strategic oversight of CHORALE’s DEC approach and informs remaining tasks of WP7–9, particularly T7.2/T8.2/T9.2, T7.3/T8.3/T9.3 and T7.5/T8.5/T9.5. Activities include a detailed mapping of stakeholders at national, regional and international levels, their interest in project results and influence over outcomes and impacts. Based on this mapping, a targeted provisional DEC plan will be devised, tailored to each target group. This plan will be updated in each reporting period to maximise project outcomes and impacts. The updated DEC plan will reflect developments within the project, external interests and wider societal changes. T7.2/T8.2/T9.2 Scientific assessment integration and research dissemination [M1-M18/M19-M36/M37-M54; WEMC 8PM, CNR 6.5PM, ECMWF 1.5PM, VUB 2PM, UQAM 1.5PM, UOT 2.5PM, UNIBO 1PM, ULUND 1.5PM, CYI 1PM, UREAD 0.5PM, IMPERIAL 0.5PM, FZJ 0.5PM, Tot 27PM] This task disseminates project results to the scientific assessment and research communities, building on consortium members’ active role in these communities. Activities include: 1. Scientific-assessment engagement and knowledge products. An assessment needs workshop (M8) will identify key knowledge gaps and evidence requirements for upcoming and ongoing assessment cycles, as well as cross-sectoral transferability. This will inform 2 emerging scientific evidence briefs (M36), considering the usefulness of emerging project results to regional and international assessment communities (see Section 2). A further assessment evidence workshop will take place in M34, exploring the usefulness of CHORALE’s results and where these can be made more robust for assessment processes. An additional 3 scientific evidence briefs will be compiled and a final assessment-readiness workshop conducted at M50. 2. A virtual community of practice and CHORALE knowledge portal to share knowledge, benchmark best practice and disseminate project results among the research community and climate service community. This online forum will be open for participation of stakeholders from these communities. It will convene biannually and provide a forum for discussion, collaboration, co-creation and dissemination. The knowledge portal will provide a virtual space to share relevant materials. 3. Three cross-sectoral expert webinars to explore project developments and tools (e.g. ILMF community of developers; land and water management practitioners). 4. Open-access scientific publications and presentation of project results in scientific conferences to inform research, climate services and scientific assessment communities, in accordance with WP1-6. 5. Coordination with other projects funded under this topic of Horizon Europe, as well as relevant national, regional and international initiatives. This will include joint activities with the ILMF, IRRMIP, ISIMIP and WCRP. T7.3/T8.3/T9.3 Science-to-policy interface [M1-M18/M19-M36/M37-M54; WEMC 8PM, CNR 3.5PM, TUDelft 3.5PM, CICERO 3PM, CYI 0.5PM, UNIBO 0.5PM, UREAD 0.5PM, IMPERIAL 0.5PM, FZJ 0.5PM, Tot 20.5PM] This task will translate CHORALE findings into policy-relevant evidence. It will identify knowledge needs, test the usability of outputs and document how engagement informs experiment choices and knowledge products. WEMC and CNR will lead on this task, with other partners contributing to delivery through expertise and networks. Activities include: 1. Cross-sectoral policy roundtables, aligned with simulation decision points, policy briefs and participation in relevant international forums. Three policy roundtables are convened, one per reporting period and timed to feed the coordinated simulations rather than only report on their results. The first, at M12 (MS7.1), maps policy needs and agrees the criteria for selecting the production scenarios. The second, at M24, provides the policy-relevance input to the Production Phase 1 scenario, fixed at MS5.1 (M29). The third, at M38, informs the Production Phase 2 scenario, fixed at MS5.2 (M39), and discusses the first results and their uptake. The roundtables aim to foster cross-sectoral dialogue among national, regional and international policymakers from the climate adaptation, water management and agriculture sectors, ensuring CHORALE results bear cross-sectoral policy relevance. Targeted participants will include EU counterparts, such as DGs CLIMA, ENV, AGRI, and the EEA, Canadian counterparts, such as ECCC and Ouranos, international organisations such as FAO, WMO, UNEP and UN Water. Relevant national policymakers, as well as sectoral stakeholders (e.g. water utilities, farmer associations) will be scoped for participation in T7.1-9.1. 2. A series of 3 policy briefs, coinciding with key developments in international and regional climate policy (e.g. UNFCCC and CBD COPs, UN Water Conferences and other relevant high-level events). 3. Workshops to engage with and inform national policy- and decision-makers of relevant project outputs and demonstrate their usefulness for uptake in national contexts. This will include 4 workshops with policy- and decision-makers. T7.4/T8.4/T9.4 Exploitation and IP management [M1-M18/M19-M36/M37-M54; CYI 8.5PM, CINECA 9PM, CNR 3.5PM, WEMC 2PM, UREAD 0.5PM, IMPERIAL 0.5PM, FZJ 0.5PM, Tot 24.5PM] This task identifies exploitable project results, potential users and uptakers, routes to adoption, IP and access considerations, and post-project sustainability pathways, to ensure relevant knowledge, methodologies, models, tools and services developed in CHORALE can be used by partners and wider scientific and operational communities beyond project lifetime. Activities include: 1. Exploitation planning and monitoring: identification and characterisation of Key Exploitable Results (KERs), their ownership, potential users and uptakers, exploitation routes and barriers to uptake. This will be facilitated through an exploitation and IP workshop for the consortium (M12). An interim exploitation plan will be prepared at M13 and subsequently reviewed and updated, including the Results Ownership List (ROL). A final exploitation plan will be delivered at M54. 2. IPR management: assessment of ownership, access rights, licensing and other IP considerations relevant to the exploitation of project results, including identification of appropriate recommendations for protection and licensing approaches where applicable. 3. Post-project uptake and sustainability: identification and pursuit of pathways for continued use, availability and maintenance of key project results beyond project duration, including building on collaborations with relevant national and European infrastructures and initiatives (e.g. ICSC, FUTURA, ENES-RIse), institutional uptake, follow-up projects and appropriate funding or hosting mechanisms (M54) T7.5/T8.5/T9.5 Communication activities [M1-M18/M19-M36/M37-M54; WEMC 7PM, CNR 3.5PM, CYI 2.5PM, Tot 13PM] This task will deliver EU-compliant branding, web and social-media presence, newsletters, visual materials, targeted communications around major project findings and milestones, accessible communication materials and a plain-language explainer package for key audiences. Final impact and legacy activities will support continued access to and use of project results after the project end. Evidence is consolidated through the DEC plan and reporting-period outputs. |
| Work package number | 10-12 | Lead (co-lead) | CNR (WEMC, CINECA) |
| Work package title | Project coordination, management, implementation governance and shared infrastructure/HPC support | ||
| Objectives: WPs10-12 provide the coordination, governance and shared technical infrastructure required to deliver CHORALE as a coherent and integrated project. They ensure effective administrative, financial and scientific management, support cross-WP coordination and timely decision-making, monitor progress and quality against project objectives and requirements, and maintain the evidence base needed for lump-sum reporting. In parallel, they establish and operate the common digital environment that enables collaborative development and analysis across the consortium, ensuring interoperable, reproducible and FAIR management of project data, code, diagnostics and workflows. | |||
T10.1/T11.1/T12.1 Project coordination, administrative, financial and legal management [M1-M18/M19-M36/M37-M54; CNR 7.5PM, WEMC 5PM, CINECA 2PM, Tot 14.5PM] RP1: management structures, Project Handbook and collaborative tools established. Quantified activities: 1 kick-off meeting (M1-3); at least one General Assembly meeting held in person (every ~12-15 months); 18 monthly coordination points; 1 periodic report. RP2: continued contractual, financial and administrative oversight; management of any amendment arising from the mid-term assessment; review and update of the Project Handbook. Quantified activities: 1 or 2 General Assembly meetings (every 12-15 months); 18 monthly coordination points; 1 periodic report. RP3: contractual and financial closure, submission of the periodic and final reports, and evaluation of the action against its objectives. Quantified activities: final project meeting; 18 monthly coordination points; 1 final report. T10.2/T11.2/T12.2 Scientific steering, governance and cross-WP integration [M1-M18/M19-M36/M37-M54, CNR 12.5PM; WEMC 2PM, TUDelft 0.5PM, CICERO 1PM, VUB 1PM, ULUND 0.5PM; IMPERIAL 0.5PM, UREAD 1PM, UQAM 1PM, UNIBO 1PM, ECMWF 1PM, FZJ 0.5PM, CINECA 1PM, CYI 1PM, UOT 0.5PM, Tot 25PM] The governance structure comprises four bodies. The General Assembly (GA), with one representative per beneficiary, is the strategic and decision-making body for consortium, financial and governance matters and meets every 12-15 months. The Executive Board (EB), composed of the Coordinator and WP leads, meets monthly to oversee project implementation, resource allocation, risks and corrective actions. The Scientific Steering Group (SSG), comprising WP leads and co-leads, meets quarterly to ensure scientific and technical integration across work packages, oversee interfaces and transfers between WPs, validate simulation configurations and readiness, and manage protocol-freeze decisions. An Advisory Board (AB) of senior experts (Table 3.3) covering Earth system modelling, terrestrial hydrology and Earth observation, land-carbon processes, climate assessment and water economics, including representative from ESA and the CMIP7/WCRP community, provides independent strategic advice and reviews project progress annually. Four standing panels (Gender and Inclusiveness Panel, Early-Career Researchers, Intellectual Property, and Arbitration) support the EB, while conflicts are resolved through a documented escalation process from the EB to the GA. UNIBO, as WP2 lead, contributes to the Scientific Steering Group (T10.2) and to quality assurance (T10.3). RP1: bodies and panels constituted, terms of reference issued, interface register and decision log established. RP2: The Steering Group records the configurations selected for the coordinated simulation programme (MS4.2, MS4.4) and arbitrates the residual protocol decisions; the AB provides the independent mid-term view; the panels continue their monitoring functions. RP3: Coordination of cross-WP synthesis and final AB review; SG-led preparation of the synthesis paper (D12.2), integrating scientific contributions from the WPs. T10.3/T11.3/T12.3 Progress monitoring, quality assurance and lump-sum completion evidence [M1-M18/M19-M36/M37-M54; WEMC 4.5PM, CNR 7.5PM, IMPERIAL 0.5PM, UREAD 0.5PM, UNIBO 0.5PM, TUDelft 0.5PM, ECMWF 0.5PM, ULUND 0.5PM, CICERO 0.5PM, FZJ 0.5PM, VUB 0.5PM, UQAM 0.5PM, CINECA 0.5PM, CYI 0.5PM, UOT 0.5PM, Tot 18.5PM] The task maintains the WP completion register, providing the evidence base for progress monitoring, lump-sum reporting and the declaration of completed work packages. The register is reviewed ahead of each reporting period to verify completeness and identify risks requiring corrective action. Internal submission deadlines are set 4-6 weeks before contractual due dates. The task operates the project quality and monitoring system, including internal review of all deliverables, regular tracking of progress against project objectives and impact indicators, and quarterly review of the risk register with assigned owners and escalation procedures. RP1: quality and monitoring procedures, indicator baseline and completion register established. Quantified activities: 3 six-monthly dashboards; 6 quarterly risk reviews. RP2: mid-term assessment of progress and effort against the work plan; completion register maintained for the work packages closing in this period. Quantified activities: 3 dashboards; 6 risk reviews. RP3: final deliverable review, closing indicator assessment against the baseline, and closing entries of the completion register. Quantified activities: 3 dashboards; 6 risk reviews. T10.4/T11.4/T12.4 Shared HPC and co-development/analysis environment [M1-M18/M19-M36/ M37-M54; CINECA 9PM, CNR 7.5PM, WEMC 0.5PM, ECMWF 0.5PM, FZJ 0.5PM, UQAM 0.5PM, UOT 0.5PM, CYI 0.5PM, VUB 0.5PM, ULUND 0.5PM, UREAD 0.5PM, TUDelft 0.5PM, IMPERIAL 0.5PM, UNIBO 0.5PM, CICERO 0.5PM, Tot 23PM] CINECA deploys and operates the shared technical environment that makes the Pillar 1 co-development methodology operational: a common project workspace on Tier-0/Tier-1 and EuroHPC-class systems, portable and containerised software stacks and environment modules, a shared interactive and batch analysis platform (Jupyter-based workspaces mounted against parallel high-performance storage and computing), managed staging areas for the observational collections and for the coordinated simulation output, and high-throughput data transfer between participating centres. The environment pre-installs and containerises the open community diagnostic packages ESMValTool and ILAMB alongside the CHORALE process diagnostics, reusing deployment templates and execution workflows from OptimESM, FUTURA and EXPECT. The task also supports the bounded km-scale regional simulations and the AI-enabled downscaling activities, and provides user support, documentation and hands-on technical workshops. Computing allocations for the model simulations are secured by the individual modelling centres through their national, institutional and EuroHPC channels and are reported in §3.2 as an in-kind contribution of the beneficiaries; CHORALE resources fund the integration, operation and user support of the shared environment and the computing required for the common analysis. The environment is connected to the Italian HPC/ESGF infrastructure operated by CINECA, providing a route for publication of project output through ESGF-compatible services. RP1: environment deployed and opened to all work packages; first technical workshop (M6). RP2: staging and archive capacity scaled to the volume of the coordinated simulations; ingestion and quality control of model output; support to the regional high-resolution nests; second technical workshop (M24). RP3: support to the assessment-oriented analysis, curation of the archive, and arrangements for the availability of the environment and of the curated data beyond the end of the action. T10.5/T11.5/T12.5 Data management, FAIR support and project repository [M1-M18/M19-M36/M37-M54; CINECA 7.5PM, CNR 7PM, WEMC 2PM, Tot 16.5PM] This task implements the open-science approach described in §1.6 by defining project-wide metadata, naming, versioning and licensing conventions, aligned with CMIP7/ESGF practice and the coordinated simulation protocol. Where CHORALE protocols evolve into community MIPs, associated outputs will follow CMIP7-compatible standards and data requests. The task establishes and operates the CHORALE project repository, providing a version-controlled environment for portable model developments, protocols, diagnostics, workflows and associated documentation, while supporting the transferability of developments across EC-Earth, NorESM, CESM and CanESM and the regional configurations (WRF, GEM, ICON-TSMP). It also manages the publication, archiving and preservation of project outputs through appropriate repositories and persistent identifiers, ensuring FAIR and open access to results. Finally, it provides WP7-9 with the licensing and access conditions required to support exploitation and IPR activities. RP1: Data Management Plan (M6); repository established; first development packages and protocols released (MS10.3). RP2: updated Data Management Plan; publication of the coordinated simulation output under the agreed conventions; consolidation of the repository as developments mature. RP3: final Data Management Plan; long-term deposit and identifier assignment for datasets, code and protocols, including the completed Development and Transferability Matrix (WP4); sustainability arrangements for the repository after the project. Boundary with WP7–9: clustering, international collaboration, communication, dissemination, exploitation and IPR are delivered by WP7–9; WP10-12 cover internal governance, administrative and financial management, shared infrastructure, data management and compliance. Completion evidence. WP10 (RP1): D10.1-D10.5; MS10.1-MS10.3; RP1. WP11 (RP2): D11.1-D11.3; MS11.1-MS11.2; RP2. WP12 (RP3): D12.1-D12.2; MS12.1; final report. |
Table 3.1c: List of Deliverables
| No. | Name | Short description | WP | Lead | Type | Diss. | Month |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1.1 | Observational data and reproducible workflow framework | Report and deployed data framework defining scientific requirements, curated observational references, uncertainty/provenance documentation, and reproducible access/preprocessing workflows on shared platform | 1 | CINECA | OTHER | PU | 6 |
| D1.2 | Observation-based vegetation and land–atmosphere diagnostics | Comprehensive benchmark system for vegetation properties and plant-mediated water processes | 1 | UREAD | DATA | PU | 18 |
| D1.3 | Observation-constrained hydrological diagnostic package | Curated observational references and reproducible hydrological diagnostic workflows | 1 | CNR | DATA | PU | 18 |
| D2.1 | Scale-aware and time-variable representation of runoff generation | Portable code prototype (v0) for documented and tested scale-aware formulations of runoff generation | 2 | UNIBO | OTHER | PU | 30 |
| D2.2 | Scale-aware and time-variable representation of RZSC | Global grid-scale estimates of RZSC at multiple resolutions and portable code prototype (v0) for online implementation of time variable RZSC | 2 | TU Delft | OTHER | PU | 30 |
| D2.3 | Groundwater dynamics, lateral flow and river routing implementation | Portable prototype (v0) implementation of unconfined-aquifer storage and lateral flow in ESMs | 2 | FZJ | OTHER | PU | 30 |
| D2.4 | Irrigation and managed water use representation | Portable prototype (v0) implementation of irrigation representation and human-water dynamics across participating ESMs | 2 | VUB | OTHER | PU | 30 |
| D3.1 | Offline codebase of extended EEO framework developments | Offline codebase of extended EEO framework developments publicly available | 3 | IMPERIAL | OTHER | PU | 24 |
| D3.2 | Report on the impact of EEO-based process representation | Report on the impact and performance of EEO-based process representation in CLM-FATES, ECLand-LPJ-GUESS-P | 3 | CICERO | R | PU | 36 |
| D3.3 | ECLand EEO-based ecohydrological coupling | Implementation in ECLand of an ecohydrological coupling, evaluated against the LPJ-GUESS-coupled configuration in use within the EC-Earth consortium. | 3 | IMPERIAL | OTHER | PU | 25 |
| D4.1 | Integration, testbed and readiness framework | Framework establishing the common evaluation and readiness pathway for hydrological and ecosystem developments, enabling consistent assessment and evidence-based selection of configurations for WP5. | 4 | ECMWF | R | PU | 15 |
| D4.2 | Interdisciplinary evaluation and configuration-readiness report | Integrated assessment of prioritised hydrological and ecosystem developments, synthesising offline and coupled evidence to support configuration selection and readiness for WP5 production, including limitations and qualified fall backs. | 4 | CINECA | R | PU | 33 |
| D4.3 | Development and Transferability Matrix, prototype and production-readiness record and portability synthesis | Final evidence-based Matrix documenting the originating implementation, attempted and completed transfer pathways, evaluation and coupled-prototype evidence, prototype and production-readiness outcomes, dependencies, required adaptations, applicability limits, provenance, production uptake and qualified fall-back. | 4 | CNR | R | PU | 36 |
| D5.1 | Coordinated Simulation Matrix and production protocols | Common production protocols experiment design, implementation requirements, outputs, QC, metadata and provenance | 5 | UQAM | R | PU | 18 |
| D5.2 | Coordinated offline production datasets | Progressive offline simulations from the production-ready developments/configurations completed and made available to WP6, including standardization with metadata and provenance | 5 | UQAM | DATA | PU | 24 |
| D5.3 | Coordinated historical production datasets | Standardized coupled historical simulation datasets produced using WP4-qualified configurations, | 5 | UQAM | DATA | PU | 31 |
| D5.4 | Production Phase 1 future and land-management simulation datasets | Phase 1 future reference, irrigation-attribution and regreening datasets | 5 | CINECA/UQAM | DATA | PU | 39 |
| D5.5 | Production Phase 2 future and land-management simulation datasets | Phase 2 future reference, irrigation-attribution and regreening datasets | 5 | CINECA/ UQAM |
DATA | PU | 48 |
| D5.6 | Paired high-resolution and AI-downscaling framework datasets | Paired global–regional datasets and convection-permitting datasets, together with the associated AI-downscaling framework/datasets. | 5 | UQAM | DATA | PU | 48 |
| D6.1 | Historical evaluation of complex extremes and WEC feedback | Assessment of how CHORALE developments change the simulated historical coupling between water, energy and carbon, relative to pre-CHORALE configurations. | 6 | CNR | R | PU | 36 |
| D6.2 | Projected biophysical impacts of regreening and irrigation | Assessment of the biophysical impacts of Phase 1 regreening and irrigation experiments on temperature and humidity extremes, surface energy partitioning and the water cycle, based on the datasets delivered in D5.4. | 6 | VUB | R | PU | 48 |
| D6.3 | Cross-scale verification of land–atmosphere coupling and WEC feedback | Assessment of whether land–atmosphere coupling, WEC feedback and irrigation/regreening responses remain physically consistent between paired global-regional & convection-permitting simulations | 6 | ECMWF | R | PU | 52 |
| D6.4 | Future feedback regreening feasibility and irrigation trade-offs | Synthesis of the coupled future assessment of regreening and irrigation across both production phases | 6 | ULUND | R | PU | 54 |
| D7.1 | DEC plan I | Provide overall strategy on dissemination, exploitation and communications | 7 | WEMC | R | PU | 6 |
| D7.2 | Policy integration strategy I | Integrate finding from policy roundtables, briefs, webinars and other policy-relevant activities into roadmap | 7 | WEMC | R | PU | 12 |
| D7.3 | Exploitation & IP plan I | CHORALE’s IP & exploitation strategy (version 1) | 7 | CYI | R | SEN | 13 |
| D7.4 | Scientific assessment & research knowledge products I | Compile reports on assessment needs workshop, community of practice, knowledge products disseminated and their reach (RP1) | 7 | WEMC | R | PU | 16 |
| D8.1 | DEC plan II | Update on DEC plan | 8 | WEMC | R | PU | 21 |
| D8.2 | Policy integration strategy II | Update policy findings from the M24 roundtable, webinars, briefs and other policy-relevant activities into roadmap | 8 | WEMC | R | PU | 30 |
| D8.3 | Exploitation & IP plan II | Update of CHORALE’s IP & exploitation strategy | 8 | CYI | R | SEN | 32 |
| D8.4 | Scientific assessment & research knowledge products II | Compile reports on assessment readiness workshop, community of practice, knowledge products disseminated and their reach (RP2) | 8 | WEMC | R | PU | 34 |
| D9.1 | DEC plan III | Third DEC plan update | 9 | WEMC | R | PU | 39 |
| D9.2 | Policy integration strategy III | Update policy findings from the M38 roundtable, webinars, briefs and other policy-relevant activities into roadmap | 9 | WEMC | R | PU | 48 |
| D9.3 | Exploitation & IP plan III | Final CHORALE’s IP & exploitation strategy | 9 | CYI | R | SEN | 54 |
| D9.4 | Scientific assessment & research knowledge products III | Compile final reports on assessment readiness workshop, community of practice, knowledge products disseminated and their reach (RP3) | 9 | WEMC | R | PU | 52 |
| D9.5 | DEC legacy plan | Plan to integrate and sustain scientific assessment, policy and cross-sectoral best practice after project completion | 9 | WEMC | R | PU | 54 |
| D10.1 | Project Handbook I | Project governance and operational handbook | 10 | CNR | R | PU | 3 |
| D10.2 | Data Management Plan I | Initial DMP covering project data, workflow and outputs | 10 | CINECA | DMP | PU | 6 |
| D10.3 | Quality and risk management plan I | Procedures to identify, monitor and mitigate project risks and ensure quality of deliverables | 10 | WEMC | R | SEN | 6 |
| D10.4 | Shared HPC and co-development environment operational | Common workspace, software stacks, analysis platform, staging and transfer services available to all WPs | 10 | CINECA | OTHER | SEN | 9 |
| D10.5 | CHORALE repository and portable-development framework | Version-controlled repository for portable model developments, protocols, diagnostics and workflows, hosting the Development and Transferability Matrix (WP4). | 10 | CINECA | OTHER | PU | 12 |
| D11.1 | Project Handbook II | Updated project governance and operational handbook, including mid-term progress assessment against the work plan | 11 | CNR | R | PU | 24 |
| D11.2 | Data Management Plan II | Updated DMP (conventions applied to the coordinated simulation output project repository) | 11 | CINECA | DMP | PU | 30 |
| D11.3 | Quality and risk management plan II | Updated procedures for risk identification, monitoring and mitigation, for deliverable quality assurance | 11 | WEMC | R | SEN | 30 |
| D12.1 | Final data, software and infrastructure legacy report | Final DMP, including sustainability arrangements beyond the project. | 12 | CINECA | R | PU | 54 |
| D12.2 | CHORALE synthesis paper | Synthesis of the project results, convened and edited by the SG, submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. | 12 | CNR | R | PU | 54 |
Table 3.1d: List of milestones
| Milestone # | Milestone name | WPs | Due | Means of verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS1.1 | Observational and diagnostic requirements agreed | 1, 4 | M3 | Agreed matrix of observational requirements, candidate datasets and initial diagnostic specifications shared with T4.1 |
| MS1.2 | WP1 diagnostic framework operational | 1, 2, 6 | M10 | First versioned implementations of the selected diagnostics and observational reference outputs available for the initial study/benchmark regions and modelling activities |
| MS2.1 | Development of scale-aware and time-variable key hydrological processes in pilot areas | 1, 2 | M18 | First version implementations of scale-aware and time-variable representation of runoff generation, root zone storage capacity, groundwater and irrigation dynamics in pilot areas |
| MS2.2 | Hydrological process developments implemented and offline evaluated | 2, 4 | M30 | All WP2 process developments implemented in at least one land model and evaluated offline against WP1 benchmarks. |
| MS3.1 | EEO-based developments implemented | 3, 4 | M24 | Gas-exchange, phenology and rooting developments implemented in ECLand, LPJ-GUESS and CLM-FATES and evaluated offline. |
| MS4.1 | Common testbeds and evaluation protocols operational | 4, 1 | M9 | Shared evaluation protocols, reference configurations and observational constraints released in the project repository; the reference configuration of each participating ESM tested in the common offline testbeds; initial entries created in the Development and Transferability Matrix. |
| MS4.2 | Phase 1 production configurations selected | 4, 5 | M21 | First tested versions of mature developments and attempted transfers assessed; Phase 1 configurations and qualified fall-backs selected for offline, historical and Phase 1 future and land-management production, with the first Matrix snapshot recorded. |
| MS4.3 | Coupled prototype evaluation completed | 4,5 | M24 | Reduced-cost prescribed-ocean prototype integrations completed for the coupled configurations of the ESMs, with scientific and technical qualification evidence recorded in the Development and Transferability Matrix. |
| MS4.4 | Phase 2 production configurations selected | 4, 5 | M34 | Later-maturing and cross-cutting developments and attempted transfers assessed (T4.2) and coupled-prototype evidence consolidated; Phase 2 configurations, limitations and qualified fall-backs selected for Phase 2 future and land-management production. |
| MS5.1 | Production Phase 1 scenario fixed | 5 | M29 | Phase 1 scenario fixed within the medium-to-high-emission family following the agreed decision criteria and stakeholder input. |
| MS5.2 | Production Phase 2 scenario and convection-permitting cases fixed | 5, 7 | M39 | Phase 2 scenario fixed within the low-emission family; configuration of the convection-permitting irrigation-attribution component of the nested production, driven by the Phase 1 experiments, including the selected models and sub-domains, fixed based on the global sensitivity diagnostics and stakeholder input. |
| MS5.3 | Driving fields available for regional productions | 5, 6 | M40 | Driving fields from the global Phase 1 experiments archived in the agreed format and accessible to all regional modelling partners. |
| MS6.1 | Historical evaluation framework operational across the four-model ensemble | 4, 5, 6 | M25 | Coupling metrics and benchmarking workflows running on the shared analysis environment for all participating models; reported in D6.1. |
| MS7.1 | First policy roundtable conducted | 7 | M12 | Policy roundtable with >15 relevant stakeholders, meeting summary presented |
| MS7.2 | First community of practice convened | 7 | M18 | Community of practice established with a documented membership and a first working session held. |
| MS8.1 | Mid-project dissemination and exploitation review completed | 8 | M36 | Second-period dissemination, exploitation and communication plan issued, exploitation register updated. |
| MS9.1 | Final policy uptake and exploitation package | 9 | M54 | Final policy briefs, exploitation plan and community-of-practice handover completed. |
| MS10.1 | Shared environment available to all work packages | 10, 1,2,3,4 | M9 | Documented access granted to all modelling and analysis partners; user guide published; first shared workflows executed. |
| MS10.2 | Common data request and output conventions issued | 10, 5,6 | M12 | Data request document agreed by all modelling groups and published in the project repository. |
| MS10.3 | First development packages and protocols released | 10,2,3,4,5 | M15 | Repository entries with persistent identifiers for development packages & experiment protocols. |
| MS11.1 | First coordinated simulations: shared archive publication readiness | 11, 5,4 | M24 | Output from at least two ESMs ingested, quality-controlled and accessible |
| MS11.2 | Mid-term implementation review completed | 11 | M34 | EB and AB evaluation; updated risk register; corrective actions agreed before RP3 starts |
| MS12.1 | Data, software, infrastructure legacy arrangements in place | 12 | M54 | Curated archive and repository with persistent identifiers; documented sustainability arrangements beyond the action. |
Risks identified during preparation of this proposal and their contingency plans are presented in Table 3.1e. A risk register and continuous risk management will be maintained by the Coordinator with the support of the Project Manager and the participation of all relevant partners, and it will be updated regularly. We note that this proposal is prepared at a time of socio-economic instability, and that geopolitical uncertainty as well as rising fuel prices may hinder travel.
Table 3.1e: Critical risks for implementation
| Description of risk (L-Likelihood, S-Severity) | WPs | Proposed risk-mitigation measures |
|---|---|---|
R1.1 River-discharge records and EO soil-moisture products may have insufficient spatial coverage, temporal length or quality in some study regions, limiting the robustness of the observational relationships required by T1.3 and the hydrological parameterisations developed in WP2 – L: Medium | S: Medium |
1, 2, 4 | WP1 will screen data quality, coverage and uncertainty using complementary discharge, soil-moisture and storage products. Diagnostics will be limited to adequately supported regions and remaining gaps documented. Where a region cannot be constrained, evaluation falls back on process-level and cross-model consistency checks. |
| R2.1 Scale-aware parametrizations (T2.1) may not generalise across the climatic, physiographic and land-use diversity of the four ESM frameworks, limiting portability – L: Medium | S: High | 2, 4 | Parameterisations will be tested across contrasting catchments, resolutions and land models. Non-transferable formulations will be reported with their domains of applicability rather than forced into universal use. Coordinated experiments require implementation in at least two models, so one failed port does not compromise delivery. |
R2.2 Temporal evolution of RZSC (T2.2) may be dominated by confounding factors making it difficult to isolate real trends – L: Medium | S: Medium |
2 | T2.2 will compare moving windows and independent land-cover and disturbance records to separate climate variability from structural change, prioritising long records. |
| R2.3 The computational cost and technical complexity of the ECLand–ParFlow coupling (T2.3) confine explicit groundwater dynamics and lateral subsurface flow to regional domains or delay the implementation – L: Medium | S: Medium | 2, 4, 5 | The Dirichlet-closure aquifer storage is developed in parallel and independently as the portable option for all ESMs. The ParFlow coupling is staged from regional domains and serves as a physically complete reference, not as a dependency of the production simulations. |
| R2.4 Long groundwater equilibration times and poorly constrained aquifer properties (T2.3) cause water-table drift that carries into coupled simulations and weakens evaluation against observed water levels and GRACE/GRACE-FO – L: Medium | S: High | 2, 4, 5 | Spin-up protocols (T5.1) will initialise from equilibrium water-table estimates with offline pre-spin-up. Residual drift is quantified in the T4.3 prototypes before production, and aquifer parameters are tested across documented sensitivity ranges. |
| R2.5 The aquifer coupling depends on preferential recharge (T2.1), saturated-zone root uptake (T3.4) and irrigation abstraction (T2.4), which are developed concurrently; inconsistent interfaces lead to water-balance errors or double counting – L: Medium | S: Medium | 2, 3, 4 | Exchange fluxes and interface variables are agreed early in WP2–WP3. The coupling is first tested with prescribed fluxes, and water-balance closure checks are applied at each integration step. |
| R3.1 Reduced NCAR support for CLM development delays the integration of WP2–WP3 developments into CESM/CLM - L: Medium | S: Low | 3,4 | The NorESM consortium has developed significant software expertise that can mirror that provided by NCAR, and distributed online development workflows would mitigate this risk. But there is some possibility of descoping some WP2 integration into CLM if NCAR support is entirely removed. |
R4.1 A development that performs well offline degrades or destabilises the coupled system, and this is discovered during production, including EEO schemes and failure modes not exposed by the prescribed-ocean prototypes – L: Medium | S: Medium |
2, 3, 4, 5 | Coupled prototypes expose instability before production, and each group records a qualified fall-back configuration at both decision points. Prototype limitations are explicit and early historical quality control detects residual coupled issues; unstable EEO schemes remain offline and are excluded from production at MS4.2 or MS4.4 without compromising qualified configurations. |
R4.2 WP2/WP3 developments mature later than planned and miss the offline evaluation window or meet unforeseen technical difficulties (e.g. balance-check or restart failures) – L: Medium | S: Medium |
2, 3, 4 | The early, low-cost testbed accepts developments on a rolling basis. Developments will be tested at a very early stage to establish and test evaluation workflows. Late developments may enter production only if qualified before readiness selection; otherwise they remain documented portable outcomes. Developments are integrated as separate branches, so unresolved issues in one task do not block the others. |
| R4.3 Modelling groups deliver developments directly into production and under-engage in the coordinated evaluation – L: Medium | S: Medium | 2, 3, 4, 5 | WP2-WP3 modelling groups have dedicated WP4 effort, shared forcing and portable workflows; participation is documented in the readiness report. |
| R5.1 The computational cost of the coordinated production matrix, particularly km-scale simulations over the EURO-CORDEX and MENA-CORDEX, limits the number, duration or spatial extent of planned experiments, the number of coupled ensemble members, or prototype testing for the most constrained groups – L: Medium | S: High | 5, 6 | The O3 minimum simulation matrix will be prioritised and resources reviewed before MS5.1 and MS5.2. Additional members and extensions will proceed only once the core matrix is secured. Production may be redistributed across partner and fall back facilities without reducing the minimum KPI commitments |
| R5.2 Participating models differ in their ability to represent irrigation, regreening and associated hydrological processes, limiting strict consistency across the production ensemble – L: High | S: Medium | 5, 6 | Common objectives and minimum requirements permit documented model-specific implementation while preserving consistent intervention-control comparisons. |
| R5.3 Data-driven downscaling does not reproduce key high-resolution hydroclimatic features across the target regions or variables – L: Medium | S: Medium | 5, 6 | Alternative methods are benchmarked against dynamic kilometre-scale references and applied only where predefined performance criteria are met. |
| R5.4 Spatial restoration plans and land-cover information are incomplete, heterogeneous or difficult to translate consistently into model-specific vegetation representations – L: Medium | S: Medium | 5, 6 | The protocol uses the best documented plans at freeze, transparent eligibility rules and traceable translation into model-specific vegetation representations. |
| R5.5 Post-CMIP7 scenario products are not available, or not yet documented, at the Phase 1 or Phase 2 selection points – L: Medium | S: Low | 5 | The experimental design fixes the number, structure and length of the production simulations, not the identity of the scenarios; the computational cost is therefore independent of the scenario selected. If no post-CMIP7 scenario product is usable at MS5.1 or MS5.2, the corresponding CMIP7 scenario is adopted, with no impact on cost, schedule or experiment count. |
| R6.1 Models cannot reproduce historical patterns of complex extremes and the strength of the underlying land–atmosphere WEC coupling - L: Medium | S: Medium | 5, 6 | Focus analyses in subsequent tasks (T6.2-4) on extremes that are correctly represented and apply weighting techniques or emergent constraints. |
| R6.2 Land–atmosphere coupling, WEC feedback and irrigation/regreening responses are not physically consistent as resolution increases - L: Medium | S: High | 5, 6 | Identify processes responsible for divergence and alleviate where possible through targeted model development or parameter calibration. |
R6.3 Cross-scale verification is delayed because the regional nests depend on the completion of the global Phase 1 experiments – L: Medium | S: Medium |
5, 6 | Historical nests can start independently; cross-scale verification is staged, with historical results preceding future results. |
| R7.1 Project findings are not suitable for inclusion in scientific assessment - L: Medium | S: High | 7,8,9 | Work closely with scientific assessment community to ensure knowledge product relevance (T7.2-9.2) |
| R7.2 Stakeholder availability is insufficient to inform on the scenario choice and sub-domain selections at the decision points – L: Low | S: Medium | 5, 7-9 | Roundtables precede decisions, which can still be taken from scientific evidence if consultation input is delayed. |
| R7.3 Limited engagement of policy and scientific assessment stakeholders - L: Medium | S: High | 7,8,9 | Map priority stakeholders (T7.1-9.1) and engage through beneficiary networks and HEU coordinators, targeted dissemination and clear benefit mapping. |
| R7.4 Delays and inconsistencies in the production of research outputs for wider dissemination - L: Medium | S: Medium | All WP, 7-9 | Integrate dissemination and impact planning into the project workplan (T10-12.3), agree milestones with WP leaders and regularly update DEC plan |
| R10.1 Computing allocations at one or more centres are delayed or insufficient for the coordinated simulation programme – L: Medium | S: High | 10-12 | Allocations will combine national and EuroHPC calls, supported by CINECA onboarding and institutional cloud and storage quotas. |
| R10.2 Heterogeneous data volumes, formats and conventions hinder cross-model comparison and reuse – L: Medium | S: Medium | 10-12 | Common conventions, automated ingestion checks and documented archive retention will support cross-model comparison and reuse. |
| R10.3 The experiment protocols generated by CHORALE for dryland regreening and for irrigation are not taken up beyond the consortium, so that they remain a project-internal multi-model exercise rather than community MIP activities within CMIP7 – L: Medium | S: Medium | 10-12 | CHORALE designs and executes its own protocols while seeking registration and alignment with CMIP7 community activities. Protocols, forcing and diagnostics are released openly at freeze points; external uptake is monitored but not required for delivery of the project's scientific objectives. |
| R10.4 Delays in the completion of work packages at the close of a reporting period, arising from late or incomplete deliverables from individual beneficiaries and from the concentration of due dates at the end of each reporting period – L: Medium | S: High | All | The Project Management Office maintains a completion register, early internal deadlines and cross-WP review. Delays trigger a documented recovery process and, if needed, reassignment of responsibility/effort under Grant Agreement procedures. |
R10.5 Underperformance of a beneficiary or long-term absence of key staff affects a critical task – L: Low | S: Medium |
All | Each WP has lead and co-lead coverage. Foreseen absence or underperformance triggers a time-bound recovery plan and, if unresolved, EB and GA action to reassign tasks or effort. |
Table 3.1f: Summary of staff effort
| Participant\WP | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7-9 | 10-12 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1/CNR | 22 | 23 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 23 | 19 | 42 | 198 |
| 2/WEMC | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 14 | 55 |
| 3/ECMWF | 1.5 | 7 | 2 | 21 | 0 | 6 | 1.5 | 2 | 41 |
| 4/UREAD | 18 | 0 | 16 | 8 | 0 | 11.5 | 1.5 | 2 | 57 |
| 5/IMPERIAL | 3 | 0 | 29.7 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 47.7 |
| 6/UNIBO | 11 | 59 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 1.5 | 2 | 92.5 |
| 7/TUDelft | 1 | 28 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 8 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 51 |
| 8/ULUND | 0 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 12 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 40 |
| 9/CICERO | 2 | 6 | 17 | 12 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 61 |
| 10/FZJ | 0 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 12 | 6 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 36 |
| 11/VUB | 1 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 19 | 2 | 2 | 47 |
| 12/UQAM | 0 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 20 | 5 | 1.5 | 2 | 51.5 |
| 13/CINECA | 17 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 9 | 20 | 76 |
| 14/CYI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 17 | 10 | 15 | 2 | 51 |
| 15/UOT | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 20 | 7 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 43 |
| Total | 82.5 | 160 | 113.7 | 139 | 132 | 129.5 | 93.5 | 97.5 | 947.7 |
The CHORALE budget balances scientific excellence, operational implementation, and cost-efficiency in line with Horizon Europe principles.
Personnel (~93% of the budget, from the detailed budget table): Largest component, reflecting research-intensive nature.
Travel: five in-person consortium meetings, within the ~5% for travel and other costs.
Equipment: none; no major equipment purchases are foreseen, as computing and storage are provided by the infrastructures as shown Table 3.4 (Table 3.1h: none). Subcontracting: none (Table 3.1g: none).
Other direct costs: Targeted dissemination and communication activities, including stakeholder workshops and roundtables, knowledge-hub hosting, policy and scientific briefs, communication materials, conference registration and provision for open-access publication charges, within ~2% dissemination and communication.
Value for money: Lean, efficient allocation maximising scientific and societal impact while ensuring financial realism and compliance.
Deviations from average senior PM costs for UQAM are based on the University’s salary scale established under the collective agreement for full professors, including applicable employer benefits and function-related salary supplements, and therefore reflects the actual institutional employment cost of senior academic staff. Deviations from average senior PM costs for IMPERIAL are based on Imperial College London’s institutional salary and pension rates, including London-weighted employment costs and the remuneration level of highly senior academic staff, and therefore reflect the actual employment cost of senior personnel in accordance with the University's accounting practices. Lump-sum compliance will be supported by clear work-package boundaries, activities, deliverables, milestones (Tables 3.1c-d) and means of verification. Periodic technical reporting will demonstrate completion of the activities described for each work package, in accordance with the Grant Agreement.
No annexes to Part B are submitted. The ethics self-assessment has been completed in Part A.