Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth
June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels,...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cn 10 th14_leeds_wb4_5_stakeholder_workshop_methodology_fleskens

337 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
337
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Were there guidelines on how to do a stakeholder analysis for WB3???
    The purpose of this is to collate and compare stakeholders identified in the various sites with a view of suggesting the inclusion of additional stakeholders in study sites where some key stakeholders may have accidentally been overlooked.
  • take care to select a good facilitator who can express things clearly and who is sensitive to the information needs of (some) stakeholders.
  • Cn 10 th14_leeds_wb4_5_stakeholder_workshop_methodology_fleskens

    1. 1. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 WB4/5 Stakeholder Workshop Methodology Luuk Fleskens, Lindsay Stringer Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth & Environment University of Leeds, UK Mark Reed ACES, University of Aberdeen, UK
    2. 2. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Workshop aims  To share and evaluate results from WBs 4 and 5 with stakeholders  To agree recommendations for agricultural extension and national/district policy
    3. 3. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Rationale  First opportunity since WB3 for stakeholders to engage with the project  Last opportunity for face-to-face dissemination in many sites  Opportunity to evaluate findings in collaboration with stakeholders
    4. 4. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Workshop process 1. Conduct a stakeholder analysis, from which an invitation list can be extracted - this should include local stakeholders as well as national and district level policy makers 2. Develop facilitation plan and agenda for workshop, assign facilitator, book venue and invite participants 3. Run workshops according to possibilities discussed later 4. Outputs: a) report to local stakeholders; b) Information for policy brief (with WB6); c) workshop summary report (in English) to WB5 leader
    5. 5. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Preparation Step 1: Stakeholder analysis Purpose: to provide a list of invitees to the workshop Ensure a representative cross-section of the policy community is invited in addition to local stakeholders – can build on stakeholder analysis done for WB3 Include UNCCD Science and Technology Correspondent / National Focal Point If no stakeholder analysis done during WB1/WB3, the analysis should also include local stakeholders Send list of stakeholders, including a short description of how they are affected/involved to Mark Reed (m.reed@abdn.ac.uk) by 28th Feb 2011 to enable feedback Invite stakeholders to workshop
    6. 6. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Preparation Step 2: Facilitation plan  Assign experienced facilitator (same person as for WB3 workshops if possible) and inform Mark Reed who this is by 31 March 2011  Develop facilitation plan and workshop agenda based on the selected options (one session or two)
    7. 7. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Preparation Step 3: Selecting options  Option 1 (preferred): organise 2 sessions, one for local stakeholders, one for policy makers  Option 2: organise one session for local stakeholders and arrange separate dissemination meeting with policymakers
    8. 8. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Preparation Step 3 (cont’d): Selecting options  Flowcharts provided to support decision process
    9. 9. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart policy-maker session Step 1 of 3 Do you expect policy-makers to participate in a workshop if invited? Is time available for policy-maker WS session? YES NO Organize WS for local stakeholders only; organize separate interaction with policy-makers as a session on a different day or as a meeting Are you able to prepare policy-maker WS session? YES NO NO Prepare WS with sessions for local SH and policy-makers YES
    10. 10. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart policy-maker session Step 2 of 3 Is time available for policy-maker WS session? YES NO Organize WS for local stakeholders only; organize separate interaction with policy-makers as a session on a different day or as a meeting Are you able to prepare policy-maker WS session? YES NO NO Prepare WS with sessions for local SH and policy-makers YES Do you expect policy-makers to participate in a workshop if invited? Do you expect policy-makers to participate in a workshop if invited?
    11. 11. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart policy-maker session Step 3 of 3 Is time available for policy-maker WS session? Is time available for policy-maker WS session? YES NO Organize WS for local stakeholders only; organize separate interaction with policy-makers Are you able to prepare policy-maker WS session? YES NO NO Prepare WS with sessions for local SH and policy-makers YES Do you expect policy-makers to turn up at venue if invited? Do you expect policy-makers to turn up at venue if invited?
    12. 12. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart policy-maker session Decision: YES Is time available for policy-maker WS session? Is time available for policy-maker WS session? YES NO Organize WS for local stakeholders only; organize separate interaction with policy-makers as a session on a different day or as a meeting Organize WS for local stakeholders only; organize separate interaction with policy-makers as a session on a different day or as a meeting Are you able to prepare policy-maker WS session? Are you able to prepare policy-maker WS session? YES NO NO Prepare WS with sessions for local SH and policy-makers YES Do you expect policy-makers to turn up at venue if invited? Do you expect policy-makers to turn up at venue if invited?
    13. 13. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart policy-maker session Decision: NO Is time available for policy-maker WS session? Is time available for policy-maker WS session? YES NO Organize WS for local stakeholders only; organize separate interaction with policy-makers as a session on a different day or as a meeting Are you able to prepare policy-maker WS session? Are you able to prepare policy-maker WS session? YES NO NO Prepare WS with sessions for local SH and policy-makers Prepare WS with sessions for local SH and policy-makers YES Do you expect policy-makers to turn up at venue if invited? Do you expect policy-makers to turn up at venue if invited?
    14. 14. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart policy-maker session Decision aid ‘Attendance’ Is the WS venue conveniently located for invited policy- makers? Is land degradation a key concern for them? YES NO Organize WS for local stakeholders only; organize separate interaction with policy-makers as a session on a different day or as a meeting Has DESIRE raised its profile along the way? YES NO NO Attendance is not an issue to be worried about YES
    15. 15. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart policy-maker session Decision aid ‘Time constraints’ Do you expect less than 15 local SH to attend the workshop? Do you plan to discuss less than 3 technologies? YES NO Organize WS for local stake- holders only; organize interaction with policy-makers as a session on a different day or as a meeting NO Time constraints are not an issue YES Do you plan to discuss only one technology? NO YES Time constraints are not an issue
    16. 16. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart policy-maker session Decision aid ‘Readiness’ Has PESERA- DESMICE been run and are scenarios developed for the study site? Are results interesting to present to policy-makers? YES NO Organize WS for local stakeholders only; organize interaction with policy-makers as a session on a different day or as a meeting YES NO Prepare WS with sessions for local SH and policy-makers Has alternative assessment method been succesfully applied? YES NO
    17. 17. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart large study site area Step 1 of 1 Are local stakeholders well-enough informed about the entire study site area? NO YES Study site area size is not an issue to be particularly worried about. Still, it does make sense to invite people from different subareas. Study site area size is an issue that needs attention. Full geographical representation of stakeholders needs to be carefully assured and venue carefully selected.
    18. 18. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart large study site area Decision YES Are local stakeholders well-enough informed about the entire study site area? NO YES Study site area size is not an issue to be particularly worried about. Still, it does make sense to invite people from different subareas. Study site area size is an issue that needs attention. Full geographical representation of stakeholders needs to be carefully assured and venue carefully selected.
    19. 19. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart large study site area Decision NO Are local stakeholders well-enough informed about the entire study site area? NO YES Study site area size is not an issue to be particularly worried about. Still, it does make sense to invite people from different subareas. Study site area size is an issue that needs attention. Full geographical representation of stakeholders needs to be carefully assured and venue carefully selected.
    20. 20. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Flowchart large study site area Decision aid ‘knowledge of area’ Do local stakeholders engage in activities in different parts of the study site area? Is there social interaction with stakeholders in other parts of the area? NO YES Study site area size is not an issue to be particularly worried about. Still, it does make sense to invite people from different subareas. Is the study site considered by stakeholders to be rather homogeneous? NO YES YES Study site area size is an issue that needs attention. Full geographical representation of stakeholders needs to be carefully assured and venue carefully selected. NO
    21. 21. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Preparation Step 3 (cont’d): Selecting options  Further flowcharts will be provided with detailed documentation on the workshop methodology  Go through all flowcharts and e-mail the resulting set-up of your workshop to Mark Reed (also by 31 March 2011)
    22. 22. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with local stakeholders Steps 1-3 1. Presentation to introduce the DESIRE project, including summary of results from WB1-WB3 2. Presentation of WB4 trial results (prepared in advance by study site teams) 3. Presentation of WB5 model outputs showing which remediation options are most applicable, most likely to be adopted and where, across each study site
    23. 23. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with local stakeholders Step 4 (MCA) Multi-criteria evaluation of remediation options at study site scale  Revisit criteria used in WB3 and revise as needed  Do a multi-criteria evaluation using revised criteria to prioritise which remediation options (tested in WB4 and/or modelled in WB5) are most relevant for dissemination across the study site
    24. 24. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with local stakeholders Step 4 (MCA) – cont’d  Using Facilitator software, enter relevant criteria and remediation options  Score the extent to which scientific results from the project have been used on a scale of 1-5. (1 is lowest, 5 is highest)  Discuss ranked list from the Facilitator software & decide if all remediation options should be disseminated or if certain options should be prioritised.
    25. 25. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with local stakeholders Outcome of Step 4  In some study sites all trialled options may be prioritised for dissemination. If so, we need to understand WHY different options were prioritised  If none of the options that were trialled are deemed appropriate, step 5 should be replaced by a session designed to explain WHY they were not deemed appropriate
    26. 26. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with local stakeholders Outcome of Step 4 (cont’d) List of priority options  In some study sites all trialled options may be prioritised for dissemination. If so, we need to understand WHY different options were prioritised  If none of the options that were trialled are deemed appropriate, step 5 should be replaced by a session designed to explain WHY they were not deemed appropriate
    27. 27. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with local stakeholders Step 5 (priority options)  How could we facilitate adoption of priority remediation options (by using opportunities and reducing threats? Meta-plan followed by ‘sticky dot’ prioritisation Meta-plan  put 4 sheets of paper on the wall and write the question at the top; give all participants 3-5 post-it notes and a pen; and ask them to answer the question and put their answers on the wall, grouping them with similar answers; suggest themes the post-its represent and check the group agrees; then circle each group of post-its, writing the theme. This is a meta-plan.
    28. 28. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with local stakeholders Step 5 (cont’d) Sticky dot prioritisation  Give all participants 10 sticky dots and stick as many as they like next to any point they agree with (stronger agreement = more dots)  Discuss practical steps that can be taken to implement the highest scoring ideas and to achieve dissemination
    29. 29. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with local stakeholders: Follow-up steps  Explain the next steps (all stakeholders will be sent a report specifically for them)  Report should include contact details for participants and external parties that can assist with adoption/implementation of the technologies discussed  Include any other actions that need undertaking, who will do them and by when
    30. 30. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Session with policymakers Focuses on: Sharing and evaluating the results of the local stakeholder workshop Sharing and evaluating WB5 model outputs showing the likely effects of a range of policy scenarios Discussing how priority remediation options could be disseminated and promoted at district and/or national scales, using WB5 policy scenarios as a starting point
    31. 31. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Preparatory tasks  Policy makers’ time is highly constrained so they need to learn about/be reminded of the DESIRE project in advance of the session  Send brief information/background to them with the meeting invitation
    32. 32. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 If running a policymakers workshop  Use visual aids created during local stakeholder workshop (e.g. screenshots of Facilitator software)  Discuss results from local stakeholder workshop recording questions and areas of agreement/difference  Present WB5 policy scenarios recording questions and areas of agreement/difference
    33. 33. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Policymakers workshop  Ask question “how could we facilitate the adoption of priority remediation options from the previous session at study site and national scales?”  Use meta-plan and sticky dot prioritisation as before  Next steps – as before, though policy makers will receive a policy brief instead of a workshop report
    34. 34. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 If meeting with policymakers rather than holding a workshop  Need to get similar data to that from a workshop. To do this:  Identify key policy stakeholders from stakeholder analysis  Schedule an individual meeting with at least 3 different policy stakeholders (or offer to present at a lunchtime seminar at their institutions where you can showcase the findings from the local stakeholder workshop and ask for their feedback)
    35. 35. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Policymakers meetings  Present a combined, compact version of the results of the local stakeholder workshop and the WB5 policy scenarios. (The presentation should finish with results from step 5 of the local stakeholder workshop)  Allow a short time for questions and discussion and record areas of agreement/difference
    36. 36. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Policymakers meetings  Revisit the preferred list of strategies and invite the person/audience to add elements as appropriate (record any differences if more than one person from the policymaker stakeholder group is present)  Ask them to distribute 10 sticky dots over the list of suggested strategies  Explain follow-up steps as before
    37. 37. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17thth June 2009June 2009 Summary 1. Stakeholder analysis (28 FEB 2011*) 2. Facilitator & workshop set-up (31 MAR 2011*) 3. Workshops (MAY-JUNE 2011) 4. Outputs (JULY 2011): a) report to local stakeholders; b) Information for policy brief (with WB6, later date); c) workshop summary report (in English) to WB5 leader * Mail to m.reed@abdn.ac.uk for feedback

    ×