1 / 9

Working Group 2 Climate information transfer to stakeholders

Working Group 2 Climate information transfer to stakeholders. Roma, 9 July 2013. http://www.climrun.eu. Scope of the WG2 session. Overall process – the methodological key stages (WG1) Identification and selection of stakeholders (WG1) Communication with stakeholders (WG1)

akando
Télécharger la présentation

Working Group 2 Climate information transfer to stakeholders

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working Group 2Climate information transfer to stakeholders Roma, 9 July 2013 http://www.climrun.eu

  2. Scope of the WG2 session • Overall process – the methodological key stages (WG1) • Identification and selection of stakeholders (WG1) • Communication with stakeholders (WG1) • Identification of needs (WG1) • Translation of needs (WG1 and WG2)* • Defining and producing products (WG2)* • Assessing and refining products (WG2 and WG1)* * It is proposed that the protocol should focus on the mechanisms themselves, whereas the specific needs and products from the case-studies should be discussed somewhat separately. Or provided as accompanying examples.

  3. Translation of needs • What are the main difficulties to translate stakeholder needs? • (eg; difference of language ? needs of interpretation ? ) • How did we proceed to translate the needs (eg comprehensive review? Prioritization?) • Which tools did we use for the translation’ process ? Who should define and provide those tools? ( CET? SET? both ?) • What are the possible ways of improvements to better interact between SET and CET ?

  4. Translation of needs Example of toolused to translate the needs Savoie Case study

  5. Defining and producingproducts • How did the CET proceed to categorise the needs (observation/simulation) ? • Eg : 0 not possible to provide; 1 already available; 2 easy to provide; 3 able to provide, but with a lot of work • How the final products choice was made? • How did we proceed to distribute and organize the production between WP2 and WP3 ? • What were the main challenges in the production process? (eg database availability, lack of observational data, time of processing? Interaction between scientists? )

  6. Defining and producingproducts • How we organized the first transfer of the products to SET? (supply of raw data? Processed and analyzed data ?) What could be improved? • How was the interaction with SET and Stakeholders during this production process?

  7. Assessing and refining products • What methods did we use to assess and refine products? • Iterative consultation? Interviews? Workshops only? • What did we assess and how far have we been ? • Relevant of analysis, simulation and tools (background/form/language etc.): what works what do not works? • Usefulness of data produced to improve adaptation decision-making and to change SH perception? • Quality of interactions between climate experts and stakeholders • Dissemination and sustainability of the products

  8. Assessing and refining products • Relevant presentation Not relevant Example on the relevance of the product’format (Savoie)

  9. Assessing and refining products Reflexionconcerning the dissemination and sustainability of the product : Example of SST climateforecast in Tunisia • A user need • A good appropriation of the results • What possible way for sustain the link? • Capacity building at destination level (INM etc.) ? • Mediterranean network on climat services?

More Related