Cn mo11 2_alt_status_and_planning_final_hessel

Status and Planning

Fifth Plenary Workshop

Xi’an, China

11-18 Oct, 2010

Rudi Hessel, Coen Ritsema, Simone Verzandvoort, Erik van den Elsen

Status• Panel Review• Work done

Planning• Project framework• Remaining activities and planning

Panel Review

Good to excellent project!

The EC has flagged the project internally for follow-up by EC programme policy units as a: • Success story• High visibility/ media attractive project• Project with impact on EU policies• Significant impact on health, safety, environment• Substantial breakthrough character• Significant participation from outside EU• Involvement of top researchers in the field

Compliment to us all!But also a responsibility as expectations are high…

Panel Review – general observations/recommendations

• An ambitious, important and relevant project• Collaboration between partners seems very good• Project should contribute to scientific innovation and to policies at

national, EU and international level• The HIS is very good, as is the project website• Dissemination and exploitation of results (media, fact sheets etc.) is

so far very good• impressive list of PhD and MSc studies done in the context of this

project• Gender plan is excellent and exemplary for other projects• Management team has done a very good job, both scientifically and

technically

Panel Review – requests to DESIRE

• Attention required for pending data delivery from study sites (WB1 and WB5)

• Scientific innovation should be better demonstrated >> management committee will increase efforts to increase the visibility of the PhD research within the DESIRE project

• Continuous emphasis should be given to an effective involvement of stakeholders. Also, the involvement of the policy level at the study sites needs to be improved. >> focus now on WB4, 5 and 6


• Continue to show DESIRE’s contribution to policies and regulations at national, European and international level

• Verification of best management practices resulting from the DESIRE-WOCAT method (WB3), including the economic advantages >> in WB4&5


• Attention for extrapolation to global scale >> show possible use in other areas (eg through WOCAT) and by cross-site comparison of results from WB1 (to be done), 2 (done), 3 (done), 4 (to be done) and 5 (to be done).

• Stronger quality management from the coordinator on reports from partners and WB leaders.

• Where possible: uncertainty analysis in all work using models (WB2, 4 and 5)

Panel Review – concrete points of action for WBs and NGOs

• NGOs: • story lines on stakeholder integration and contribution• Emphasis on integration of results in policy at national level

• WB1: • completion of online WOCAT map database, interpretation of

maps, presentation on HIS• Completion of driver & policy analysis and transfer to WB5 for

policy scenarios in DESMICE• WB2: interactive tool for evaluating SLM techologies on HIS• WB3: exchange visit• WB4 & WB5:

• Verification of best management practices (scientific evidence…)• Evaluation of policy scenarios and involvement of stakeholders

(WB4-5 workshops); apply lessons learned from WB3• ensure availability of sufficient biophysical & economic data for all

sites• WB6: Stronger policy involvement

Expected situation at month 45

DESIRE – where do we stand?

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5WP 1.1WP 1.2WP 1.3WP 1.4WP 2.1WP 2.2WP 3.1WP 3.2WP 3.3WP 4.1WP 4.2WP 4.3WP 4.4WP 4.5WP 5.1WP 5.2WP 5.3WP 5.4WP 6.1WP 6.2WP 6.3

Regarding WBs and project deliverables:

• WB’s 1-3 should be almost finished or concluded by now

• WB’s 4-6 should be progressing full speed

DESIRE – where do we stand?

Deliverables until month 25

1.1.1 6 July-07 completed Y1

6.1.1 12 January-08 completed Y1


4.2.1 14 March-08 completed Y2

6.1.3 16 May-08 completed Y1



6.2.1 21 October-08 completed Y2

Deliverables month 26 & 27






6.2.2 27 April-09 completed Y3




Deliverables month 30 - 45


2.1.2 30 July-09 merged with 1.3.1



1.3.1 32 September-09 under revision

1.2.1 32 September-09 under revision

3.3.3 32 September-09 completed Y3



2.2.2 42 July-10 expected month 42


Deliverables month 46 - 60

4.3.1 52 May-11 expected month 52

5.3.1 53 June-11 expected month 53





2.2.3 56 September-11 expected month 56

6.3.2 60 January-12 expected month 60

6.3.3 60 January-12 expected month 60

FRAMEWORK & PLANNING

Project framework

DESIRE:

-Large 26 partners, 5 years, 9M euro

-Complex 16 study sites * 6 WBs * different stakeholders

-Confusing?-Which work should be done for which WB?-Why is this work needed?-How do the WBs relate to each other?

Conceptual framework, methodological framework, relationships between WBs concrete planning

Project framework

Climatechange

Socio-economic drivers

DemographicsMigration

Policies Prices Markets

Social factors

Land useand management

Desertificationprocesses

Response

SLMstrategies

Other sourcesof income

People

Rurallivelihoods

Sustainabilitygoals

Bio-physical drivers

Environmentalconditions

Climatechange




Social factors



Response

SLMstrategies


People

Rurallivelihoods

Sustainabilitygoals



SLM loop

Climatechange




Social factors



Response

SLMstrategies


People

Rurallivelihoods

Sustainabilitygoals



Policy loop

(1) Identify system boundaries,

stakeholders and their goals (WB1)

(2) Describe socio-cultural, economic,

technological, political and environmental

context and drivers of change (WB1)

(10) Adjust strategies to ensure goals are met & degradation prevented

(9) Apply remediation strategies, monitor

degradation & progress to goals

Establish context and

goals

Identify, evaluate & select remediation strategies

Trial strategies & model regional effects

Apply remediation strategies &

monitor

(4) Identify, evaluate & document existing land

degradation remediation options (WB3)

(8) Disseminate strategies for extension and

national & international policy (WB6)

New remediation strategies may be identified and prioritised in response to changing contexts or

because existing strategies are no longer needed or working

(3) Determine current land degradation status, future land

degradation risk and existing soil/water

conservation (WB1,2)

Stake-holder

Analysis

Land use mapping

(WOCAT-LADA); review of

secondary sources

WOCAT-LADA expert mapping; indicator

assessment

Learning for Sustainability methodology; WOCAT

framework for technologies and approaches evaluation

and documentation

Field-based methods including

scientific and stakeholder monitoring

PESERA and economic models

(e.g. Agent-Based Modelling; Input-Output Models)

(6) Trial & monitor remediation options in field

(WB4)

(5) Prioritize remediation options with stakeholders

(WB3)

(7) Model biophysical and economic effects of remediation options at field & regional scale

(WB5)

Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation

Manuals; leaflets; Videos; policy-briefs; demonstrations etc.

Core of WBs

•WB1 employs a newly developed mapping method that allows mapping of actual degradation status as well as of actual measures taken against degradation

•WB2 extends an indicator approach that was developed for Mediterranean Europe to make it suitable for areas around the world

Core of WBs

•WB3 combined and adapted previously independent tools into one consistent method to select and evaluate strategies together with stakeholders

•WB4 trials strategies selected by stakeholders, with the involvement of stakeholders, and by combining bio-physical monitoring with socio-economic monitoring

Core of WBs

•WB5 will provide an extended PESERA model, and will combine PESERA with socio-economic modelling to simulate the effect of policy-relevant scenarios

•WB6 creates a Harmonised Information System using the latest internet technology, and specifically addresses different kinds of stakeholders using dissemination products

of different levels of complexity

Relationships between WBs

WB1Context

WB2Indicators

WB3Strategies

WB4Monitoring

WB5Regional evaluation

WB6Dissemination

Evaluate model output (P, PM)

Identify, evaluate, select strategies (P, PM)

Explore stakeholder properties & needs (P, PM)

Explore NRM institute properties & needs (PM)

Select and use dissemination products (P, PM, S)

Involvement of stakeholders:Practitioners (P)Planners and managers (PM)Scientific community (S)

Legend

Information flow between WBs

Design, implement & monitor strategies (P)

Evaluate indicators (P, PM)

RELATIONSHIPS WBs

Relationships WBs:

-Some WBs need results of other WBs-Some WBs can combine activities-Input from other WBs into WB6 can be divided in 2 parts

-Internal: needed to perform project tasks-External: needed for dissemination

Relationships WBs

WB1:• Current status of drivers, problems, measures

etc for all WBs• Provides policy scenario for each site to WB5,

in collaboration with NGOs

WB2:• Provides method to asses state of

desertification, as impacted by drivers and land use & management, using indicators

• Method to be used and updated in WB4• Data to be used in WB5

Relationships WBs

WB3:• Core stakeholder participation• Selection of technology• Technology for WB4• Data for WB5

WB4:• Tests technologies selected in WB3• Uses (some) methods from WB2• Provides data for WB5• Provides advice at plot\field scale

Relationships WBs

WB5 Scenarios will cover:• Selected site-specific policy from WB1• Selected technology from WB3 (tested in

WB4)• Other policy-relevant scenarios, such as

climate change or land use change

WB6:Translates results of WB1-5 into messages for

stakeholders, together with these WBs, and assisted by NGOs

REMAINING ACTIVITIES

Deliverables

DeliverableNo

Deliverable title Delivery date

1.2.1 An overview of desertification problems in the study countries (map & report)

Sept 2009

1.3.1Identified drivers of land degradation with specific reference to the study areas at field, local and policy level.

Sept 2009

2.2.2 Report on developed methodology for evaluation applied land management practices using indicators July 2010

2.2.3 A manual on “Using Indicators for Identifying Best Management Practices for Combating Desertification” July 2011

3.2.2 Reports on farm exchange visits Oct 2010

Deliverables

DeliverableNo

Deliverable title Delivery date

4.3.1A report with a summary of the scientific findings, in which the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the conservation measures in each hotspot area are described

May 2011

4.4.1 Improved set of indicators Jul 2011

4.5.1

Report with a description of common, widely applicable conservation measures and integration of the results across the hotspot areas. Translation of the results and presentation to the stakeholder communities, assistance in drafting good agricultural practice guidelines

Jul 2011

Deliverables

5.3.1Model outputs for each hotspot site to identify the likely environmental, environmental and social effects of proposed remediation strategies

Jun 2011

5.4.1 A list of recommended remediation strategies within each region for policy-makers and extensionists

Jul 2011

5.4.2A methodological approach and modelling tool that can be used to evaluate remediation options beyond this project

Jul 2011

6.3.2 Suite of dissemination and training products Jan 2012

6.3.3 Final DESIRE workshop on results and products with stakeholders invited

Jan 2012

Activity deadlineMonitoring May 2011

Analysis monitoring per site (incl CBA, collab WB5) May 2011

Improving indicators with WB2 Jul 2011

Comparison of sites Jul 2011

Stakeholder workshop (with WB5) Jul 2011

Guidelines good agricultural practices Jul 2011

Main actions

WB4

Activity deadlineModels completed Done

PESERA input data Jan 2011

Base runs PESERA Mar 2011

Definition scenarios completed Mar 2011

Scenario results Jun 2011

Recommended strategies Jul 2011

Stakeholder workshop (with WB4) Jul 2011

Methodological approach and modelling tool Jul 2011

Main actions

WB5

Activity deadlineSite specific dissemination plans (incl products) Feb 2011

Dissemination products completed Jan 2012

3 policy papers Jan 2012

Implement policy influencing strategy Jan 2012

Policy messages per site Jan 2012

Feedback to UNCCD completed Jan 2012

Story lines of stakeholder involvement Jan 2012

Final plenary meeting with stakeholders Jan 2012

Main actions

WB6 & NGOs

Planning

On the verge of the last year…

Which should be:

•Year of Integration (things coming together)

•Year of Finalisation (things being completed)

•Year of Dissemination

Integration

•Using and improving indicators (WB2, 3 (local indicators), 4)

•Degradation status and risk maps, and comparison of these (WB1,2,4,5)

•WOCAT (WB1,3,4 (to evaluate plot results), 5(as input for modelling))

•Involving (local) stakeholders (in principle all, but probably mainly WB3-6, NGOs)

•Reaching policy makers (in principle all, but probably mainly WB1,5,6, NGOs)

Finalisation

•Completion of deliverables•Preparing dissemination products•Scientific results

Dissemination

•Think stakeholders for your study site and/or WB!•Preparing dissemination products•Final stakeholder workshop•Reaching out to (local) stakeholders•Reaching out to Policy makers•Input for HIS

Conclusion

Keep in mind that we do not just aim to provide deliverables to EU!

We have responsibility towards stakeholders too

If DESIRE is successful, this will hopefully make a real difference in the study sites

Thanks!

Cn mo11 2_alt_status_and_planning_final_hessel

Education

Transcript of Cn mo11 2_alt_status_and_planning_final_hessel