Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Cn mo11 2_alt_status_and_planning_final_hessel
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Cn mo11 2_alt_status_and_planning_final_hessel


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Status and Planning Fifth Plenary Workshop Xi’an, China 11-18 Oct, 2010 Rudi Hessel, Coen Ritsema, Simone Verzandvoort, Erik van den Elsen
  • 2. Status • Panel Review • Work done Planning • Project framework • Remaining activities and planning
  • 3. 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…
  • 4. 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
  • 5. 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
  • 6. Panel Review – requests to DESIRE • 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
  • 7. Panel Review – requests to DESIRE • 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)
  • 8. 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
  • 9. Expected situation at month 45 DESIRE – where do we stand? Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 WP 1.1 WP 1.2 WP 1.3 WP 1.4 WP 2.1 WP 2.2 WP 3.1 WP 3.2 WP 3.3 WP 4.1 WP 4.2 WP 4.3 WP 4.4 WP 4.5 WP 5.1 WP 5.2 WP 5.3 WP 5.4 WP 6.1 WP 6.2 WP 6.3
  • 10. 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?
  • 11. Deliverables until month 25 1.1.1 6 July-07 completed Y1 6.1.1 12 January-08 completed Y1 6.1.2 12 January-08 completed Y1 4.2.1 14 March-08 completed Y2 6.1.3 16 May-08 completed Y1 3.3.1 18 July-08 completed Y2 6.3.1 18 July-08 completed Y2 6.2.1 21 October-08 completed Y2
  • 12. Deliverables month 26 & 27 2.1.3 26 March-09 completed Y3 3.1.1 26 March-09 completed Y3 1.4.1 26 March-09 completed Y3 4.1.1 26 March-09 completed Y3 3.3.2 26 March-09 completed Y3 6.2.2 27 April-09 completed Y3 6.2.3 27 April-09 completed Y3 3.2.1 27 April-09 completed Y3 3.1.2 27 April-09 completed Y3
  • 13. Deliverables month 30 - 45 2.1.1 30 July-09 completed Y3 2.1.2 30 July-09 merged with 1.3.1 1.4.2 30 July-09 completed Y3 5.1.1 30 July-09 completed Y3 1.3.1 32 September-09 under revision 1.2.1 32 September-09 under revision 3.3.3 32 September-09 completed Y3 5.2.1 36 January-10 completed Y3 2.2.1 42 July-10 completed Y4 2.2.2 42 July-10 expected month 42 3.2.2 42 July-10 expected month 42
  • 14. Deliverables month 46 - 60 4.3.1 52 May-11 expected month 52 5.3.1 53 June-11 expected month 53 4.4.1 54 July-11 expected month 54 4.5.1 54 July-11 expected month 54 5.4.1 54 July-11 expected month 54 5.4.2 54 July-11 expected month 54 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
  • 16. 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?
  • 17. Conceptual framework, methodological framework, relationships between WBs  concrete planning Project framework
  • 18. Climate change Socio-economic drivers Demographics Migration Policies Prices Markets Social factors Land use and management Desertification processes Response SLM strategies Other sources of income People Rural livelihoods Sustainability goals Bio-physical drivers Environmental conditions
  • 19. Climate change Socio-economic drivers Demographics Migration Policies Prices Markets Social factors Land use and management Desertification processes Response SLM strategies Other sources of income People Rural livelihoods Sustainability goals Bio-physical drivers Environmental conditions SLM loop
  • 20. Climate change Socio-economic drivers Demographics Migration Policies Prices Markets Social factors Land use and management Desertification processes Response SLM strategies Other sources of income People Rural livelihoods Sustainability goals Bio-physical drivers Environmental conditions Policy loop
  • 21. (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.
  • 22. 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
  • 23. 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
  • 24. 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
  • 25. Relationships between WBs WB1 Context WB2 Indicators WB3 Strategies WB4 Monitoring WB5 Regional evaluation WB6 Dissemination 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)
  • 26. 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
  • 27. 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
  • 28. 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 plotfield scale
  • 29. 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
  • 31. Deliverables Delive rable No Deliverable title Delivery date 1.2.1 An overview of desertification problems in the study countries (map & report) Sept 2009 1.3.1 Identified 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
  • 32. Deliverables Delive rable No Deliverable title Delivery date 4.3.1 A 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
  • 33. Deliverables 5.3.1 Model 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 5.4.2 A 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
  • 34. Activity deadline Monitoring 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
  • 35. Activity deadline Models 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
  • 36. Activity deadline Site 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
  • 37. 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
  • 38. 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)
  • 39. Finalisation •Completion of deliverables •Preparing dissemination products •Scientific results
  • 40. 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
  • 41. 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
  • 42. Thanks!