third idmp cee workshop: peer review group report 2 by henny a. j. van lanen
DESCRIPTION
Third IDMP CEE workshop: Peer Review Group Report 2 by Henny A. J. van LanenTRANSCRIPT
FINAL DRAFT
Report No. 2
April – September 2014
Peer Review Group
Janusz Kindler
Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
Sándor Szalai *)
Szent István University, Hungary
Henny A.J. van Lanen
European Drought Centre, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Robert Stefanski *)
World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
*) Not approved yet
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Outline
Assessment procedure
General observations
Snapshots detailed comments
How to move on?
Final draft PRG report was distributed before the workshop, our
comments and observations will now be very brief.
Focus on discussion how to use best last part of the IDMP CEE
Programme to achieve as most as possible
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Assessment procedure
No permanent PRG Chair - each period (~ 6 months) another member of
PRG takes a Lead
Henny van Lanen agreed to be the Lead for the period between the
Ljubljana workshop and the Budapest workshop (April-September 2014)
The Lead produces the first draft of the assessment report per activity,
which is distributed to the other PRG three members for comments,
corrections and additional observations
After an e-mail round, the final text is produced and submitted to the
Programme Manager (not all PRG members could respond)
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Assessment procedure
Progress Report
Milestone(s) of an
Activity
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Assessment procedure
Progress Report Milestone(s) of an Activity
Basic information (Name of the Milestone report, Activity leader,
Participating partners, Duration, Chairman of the CWP)
Activity Report
- Short summary of the milestone report
- Describe the progress to the objectives of your activity
- At what stage are you now in the process of producing the final
output(s)
- Any change in the original plan as outlined in the Activity List?
- Identify links with other IDMP CEE activities
- National Reports that have been used
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Overview of assessments
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Overview of assessments
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Overview of assessments
Overview of the assessment of 9 Activities
(April to September 2014):
- Accepted, without modification 1
- Accepted, minor modifications 6
- Accepted, major modification 1
- Rejected/not approved 1 (to be further discussed in
Budapest)
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
General observations
50 most
occurring
terms in
2nd PRG
report
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
General observations
Steady progress of the work programme - comprehensive
outcome of the Activities
Review is based on milestone reports (about 10 reports), no
outputs / deliverables, but a good stepping stone towards them
Only few milestone reports still disagree with the activity list
(improvement )... they must be updated
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
General observations
Draft Guidelines for Drought Management Plans (Act. 2.1) provide a
good reference for the whole IDMP CEE project (major achievement)
Full width of the many different aspects connected to the compilation
of a drought management plan (DMP) are described in a context-
specific environment (CEE)
Clearly linked to recent thoughts on DMPs from the international
community (i.e. represented by WMO) that are integrated in the
concepts of integrated water management and pro-active risk
management
Adds to this the integration of drought management into the European
dimension (Water Framework Directive, WFD, and its River Basin
Management Plans (RBMPs)
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
General observations
A more concerted action of all partners, i.e. more work still needs
to be done jointly or at least discussed by all partners (exchange
of knowledge and experiences) – Seek added value!!
It appeared that several Milestone Progress Report were still
rather weak on identifying links with other IDMP (item 2.5,
Milestone Progress Report)
Especially applies to Work Package 5 Demonstration Projects
Important to apply a conceptual approach in which all Activities
fit
Should fit into one of the seven steps identified in the IDMP
CEE (see Act. 2.1 Ch.3 Drought Planning Process)
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
General observations Concept of Milestone Progress Report is not well-understood as
illustrated by many Activities
Report
Milestone
No.1
Milestone
Progress
Report
Report
Milestone
No.2
Annex 1
Milestone
No.1
Annex 2
Milestone
No.1
Annex 3
Milestone
No.1
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Snapshots detailed comments
Act. 1.1/1.3: Gregor Gregorič has been invited to present and
discuss the regional needs/capabilities of the CEE Drought
Information Platform and possible role as one of the GDIS pilots
(Global Drought Information System), USA, 11-13 December 2014
Act. 1.3: Informal institutional commitment between CEE and JRC
on the EDO is insufficient. We strongly recommend to compile a
MoU
Act. 2.2: National Consultation Dialogues strong mechanism;
challenge remains to synthesize the experiences from the 10
countries to derive more generic information for guidelines on DMPs
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Snapshots detailed comments
Act. 5.4: Developing a framework for integrated drought risk
mapping that can be adjusted to a given drought context
- Proposed framework should be generic in nature
- Activity partners should remind that risk is the product of
exposure to drought (probability of occurrence of the natural
hazard) and societal vulnerability (economic, environmental and
social factors)
- Number of interesting achievements are obtained, but are hard to
put in a context. Could benefit from a more clear concept
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Snapshots detailed comments
Act. 5.5: NDVI is used for the monitoring agricultural drought
- Good progress
- Justify why fAPAR is not used. fAPAR, which is known to be
strongly related to water stress, has been selected by the JRC
EDO
- Likely overlap of Act. 5.5 and Act. 5.4 (Romania case)
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Snapshots detailed comments
Act. 5.5: NDVI is used for the monitoring agricultural drought
- Good progress
- Justify why fAPAR is not used. fAPAR, which is known to be
strongly related to water stress, has been selected by the JRC
EDO
- Likely overlap of Act. 5.5 and Act. 5.4 (Romania case)
Act. 7.1: Good practice compendium
- Many examples of desertification. Desertification can be caused
by drought, but should be clearly distinguished
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move forward?
Overarching approach IDMP CEE
To shift the focus from reactive to proactive approach
To integrate vertical planning at regional, national, community levels
into a framework of horizontally integrated sectors and disciplines
To promote evolution of a knowledge base
To build a capacity of various stakeholders
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move forward?
Putting IDMP Activities
in clear concept
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move forward?
Putting IDMP Activities
in clear concept
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move forward?
Putting IDMP Activities
in clear concept
Act. 2.1: 7 steps identified through IDMP CEE
1: Establish a Drought management Committee
2: Define the objectives of a drought risk-based
management policy
3: Inventory of data needed for DMP development
4: Produce/update the DMP
5: Publicize the DMP to the public for comments
and active involvement
6: Develop a research and science programme
7: Develop an educational programme
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move forward?
AMBITION: development pro-active Drought Management Plan in
an integrated land and water management framework
Two temporal scales
Operational mode (next year drought, ongoing multiple-year
drought)
Strategic mode (future drought, prepared for global change)
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move foreward?
Operational short term
Pro-active Drought Risk Management (part of DMP)
monitoring drought hazard (incl. suite indicators,
thresholds, early warning)
(forecasting hazard, month/seasonal probabilistic)
current and (forecasted) impacts (probabilistic)
potential measures/actions to reduce impacts, to
build resilience, reduce vulnerabilities and risk (hydroclimatological modeling, impact modeling, exploration risk
management strategies, stakeholder dialogue)
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move foreward?
Strategic long-term (part of DMP)
Pro-active Drought Risk Management
predicting future hazard (probabilistic)
predicting future impacts/vulnerability (probabilistic)
potential strategic measures/actions to reduce
impacts, to build resilience, reduce vulnerabilities
and risk (hydroclimatological modeling, impact modeling, exploration risk
management strategies, stakeholder dialogue)
Forzieri et al., HESS 2014
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move forward?
- Agricultural practices (incl. increase
WHC)
- Forest ecosystems
- Natural small water retention measures
- Drought Information Platforn
- Risk Management, Decision support
system,
- GIS Based Communication Technology
Platform
- Remote sensing agricultural drought
monitoring
- Upgrading agricultural drought
monitoring and forecasting
- Guidelines for DM Plans, NCDs
- Compendium Good Practices
- International Cooperation beyond CEE
- Capacity building / Awareness rising
Focus / synthesis / concerted actions
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
How to move forward?
- Agricultural practices (incl. increase
WHC)
- Forest ecosystems
- Natural small water retention measures
- Drought Information Platforn
- Risk Management, Decision support
system,
- GIS Based Communication Technology
Platform
- Remote sensing agricultural drought
monitoring
- Upgrading agricultural drought
monitoring and forecasting
- Guidelines for DM Plans, NCDs
- Compendium Good Practices
- International Cooperation beyond CEE
- Capacity building / Awareness rising
Focus / synthesis / concerted actions QUESTIONS Activities:
Which step out of 7 steps
Guidelines DMP (Act. 2.1)?
Operational or strategic
mode?
What do you address:
- Monitoring, EW
- forecasting / prediction
- impacts, incl. threshold
- vulnerability
- measures
- management
- risk management
Budapest, Hungary, 2-4 April 2014
Assessment procedure
Final Activity Report
Basic information (Name report, Activity leader, Participating
partners, Duration, Chairman of the CWP)
Where objectives achieved?
Implementation process and methodologies applied
What are main outputs?
Added value generated by your Activity
Lessons learnt and transferability
Proposal follow-up
Thank you
Janusz Kindler
Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
Sándor Szalai
Szent István University, Hungary
Henny A.J. van Lanen
European Drought Centre, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Robert Stefanski
World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland