1 / 47

I. Expectations

The Core Questions, Working Group member roles, responsibilities and contributions for the Scientific Synthesis Group Laurence Mee Director: Scottish Association for Marine Science. I. Expectations. Science inputs and the TDA/SAP process. Why do we need international waters assessments?

brand
Télécharger la présentation

I. Expectations

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. The Core Questions, Working Group member roles, responsibilities and contributions for the Scientific Synthesis Group Laurence Mee Director: Scottish Association for Marine Science

  2. I. Expectations Science inputs and the TDA/SAP process

  3. Why do we need international waters assessments? Interventions have frequently failed to fully identify the impacts (environmental, socioeconomic) and temporal and geographical boundaries of the problem and its causes (scaling & scoping). The boundaries of the area where the problem itself is observed may not encompass the location of the cause.

  4. THE TRANSBOUNDARY DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS (TDA) • Is recommended for most IW projects • Is a scientific and technical fact-finding analysis • It should be an objective assessment and not a negotiated document • It acts as a diagnostic tool for measuring the effectiveness of SAP implementation

  5. STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME (SAP) • A SAP is a negotiated policy document • It establishes clear priorities for action to resolve the priority transboundary waters problems • It identifies policy, legal and institutional reforms and investments needed to address the priority transboundary waters problems • The preparation of a SAP is a cooperative process among key stakeholders in the countries of the region.

  6. WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES & COMPLEMENTARITIES BETWEEN THE TDA AND THE SAP? THE TDA THE SAP • THE TDA IDENTIFIES: • THE PRIORITY PROBLEMS • ENV & SE IMPACTS • UNDERLYING SECTORAL AND ROOT CAUSES • ANALYSIS OF GOVERNANCE • BASED ON A REASONED AND MULTI-SECTORAL CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEMS • THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE FORMULATION OF A SAP • OUTLINES THE POLICY, LEGAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS AND INVESTMENTS NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE PRIORITY TB PROBLEMS • MUST BE AGREED BEFORE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, CAPACITY-BUILDING, OR INVESTMENT PROJECTS CAN BE DEVELOPED • THE SAP SETS OUT SPECIFIC ACTIONS FOR EACH COUNTRY THAT CAN BE ADOPTED NATIONALLY BUT HARMONISED WITH THE OTHER CONCERNED COUNTRIES

  7. THREE SOURCES OF GEF FUNDING PDF – A Funding PDF – B Funding Full Project Funding • May cover: • Information gathering, consultation and supporting documentation to prepare full project proposals • Stakeholder involvement and M&E Plans • Establishment and initiation of TDA/SAP mechanisms • May cover: • Prep of project concept paper & pdf-b proposal • Consultation with governments • Initial stakeholder identification • An assessment of feasibility of the proposed activity • Awarded in accordance with GEF Guidelines (OS, OP, SPs) and the relevant Convention • Requisite: • Submission & approval of a full project concept paper; • A project brief for presentation of the project proposal to GEF Council

  8. SCENARIOS OF THE GEF FUNDING PROCESS Projects with a smaller number of participating countries

  9. SCENARIOS OF THE GEF FUNDING PROCESS Projects with a larger number of participating countries

  10. Underlying principles incorporated into the TDA/SAP process Full stakeholder participation Joint fact-finding (inc. social and economic root causes) Transparency The ecosystem approach Adaptive management

  11. The Ecosystem Approach A resource planning and management approach that recognizes the connections between land, air, water and all living things, including people, their activities and institutions. Definition from the Ministry of Natural Resources, Canada www.mnr.gov.on.ca/

  12. Key components of the ecosystem approach • Management objectives as societal choice • Management decentralised and multi-sectoral • Appropriate temporal and spatial scale • Conservation of ecosystem function and resilience • Appropriate balance between conservation and use • Management within system limits • The outward vision (respect interconnectedness) and long-term vision (change is inevitable) • Broad use of knowledge, scientific and traditional • Incorporation of economic considerations (costs and benefits, removal of externalities, etc.) Source: CBD Malawi guidelines

  13. Social system Ecological system A framework for understanding - DPSWR Socio-economic DRIVERS Policy RESPONSE options Environ-mental PRESSURES Environ-mental STATE changes Human WELFARE change

  14. Social system Ecological system DPSWR - Where are the impacts? Socio-economic DRIVERS Policy RESPONSE options Environ-mental PRESSURES Environ-mental STATE changes Human WELFARE change IMPACTS

  15. Natural system variability External factors Human climate change DPSWR - External factors Socio-economic DRIVERS Policy RESPONSE options Environ-mental PRESSURES Environ-mental STATE changes Human WELFARE change

  16. Communication to stakeholders must be understandable

  17. Connecting, values, visions and planning Work with the community to identify key stakeholders Stakeholders select representatives Joint fact-finding (supported by science) Community agreement on a vision for the future Brainstorming the first steps for getting there

  18. Adaptive management Positive thinking for an uncertain future

  19. ASSESSMENT

  20. SETTING THE VISION

  21. SETTING THE VISION

  22. DEFINING THE FIRST STEP

  23. NECESSARY INDICATORS

  24. MONITORING IS ESSENTIAL

  25. COMPLIANCE AND FEEDBACK

  26. PROGRESS TOWARDS THE VISION

  27. International Waters Task Force Key Indicators 2002 1. Process indicators 2. Stress reduction indicators 3. Environmental status indicators.

  28. Systems thinking: A method of rational inquiry Understanding of how human activities can impact marine environment Helps devise Leads to improvements in Metadata Information about relevant attributes of the system Sensitivity of system to proposed policy options and socio-economic changes Conceptual models describing pathways of socio-economic drivers and pressures Requirements Data and narrative Validation Models for systems analysis Scenarios

  29. PART 2 OVERVIEW OF THE 5 PHASES OF THE TDA/SAP PROCESS

  30. Underlying principles incorporated into the TDA/SAP process Full stakeholder participation Joint fact-finding (inc. social and economic root causes) Transparency The ecosystem approach Adaptive management Accountability Inter-sectoral policy building Stepwise consensus building Subsidiarity Incremental costs Donor partnerships Government commitment

  31. 1. Project development 2. Planningthe TDA/SAP 3. Development of the TDA 4. Formulatingthe SAP 5. SAPimplementation Bridging the TDA and SAP and developing long-term EcoQOs TDA Preparation Appointment of Project Manager Preliminary project request Identification and initial prioritisation of transboundary problems Form Interministry Committees Adoption of the SAP: The Ministerial Conference Planning the remaining steps of the SAP and appointing SAP and NAP formulation teams Appointment of Facilitator Form Steering committee Analysis of impacts/ consequences transboundary problems Conducting a Donors Conference Identification and consultation with the stakeholder groups Brainstorming ways to attain the EcoQOs Set up the TDA Technical Task Team (TTT) Final prioritisation of transboundary problems Development of relevant interventions by GEF and/or other donors Examination of and political consultation on alternative options Identification of the technical task team (TTT) Design work plan for the TDA/SAP implementation phase including budgets Causal chain analysis and governance analysis Development of targets and indicators Preparation of a draft concept paper Detailed stakeholder analysis and draft public involvement plan Agreement on the institutional framework Production and submission of complete draft TDA Project approval by the GEF CEO Drafting the NAPs and SAP Preparation of Full Project brief TDA adopted by steering committee

  32. 4. FORMULATING THE SAP • The Strategic Action Programme is a process of reaching political consensus on the policy and legal reforms, investments and capacity building requirements needed to address the key issues identified in the TDA. • It requires the best possible technical advice and is based on the principle of collaborative problem solving

  33. Underlying principle of negotiation: Collaborative problem solving Seeking compromise When there may be no win-win solution.

  34. Dewey’s ‘rules of logic’ (1930) • Define the problem in terms of needs, not solutions • Brainstorm possible solutions • Select the solutions that will best meet both parties’ needs and check possible consequences • Plan who will do what, where and when • Implement the plan • Evaluate the problem-solving process and, at a later date, how well the solution turned out.

  35. STEPS FOR DEVELOPING THE SAP • Develop a long term vision for the region • Brainstorm ways to attain the Eco/WR QOs • Assess the acceptability of the options, including: technical feasibility, as well as economic and political • Set short-term targets and priority actions • Develop M & E indicators • Draft the SAP

  36. Building a national and regional consensus on the SAP

  37. “Wicked” and “Tame” Problems “Tame” problem can be solved by careful rules-based or consensus management First order “fixes” Clear solutions no clear solution; there will be winners and losers “Wicked” problem involves moral judgements and value-based decisions: governance. Hard choices Jentoft and Chuenpagdee (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem

  38. A GEF intervention that goes well Mee, Eberhard and Dublin, Global Environmental Change, 2008

  39. … and not so well. Mee, Eberhard and Dublin, Global Environmental Change, 2008

  40. Temporal issues

  41. III. Core Questions

  42. Critical emerging science issues (5 Core Questions) • What are the critical science challenges “on the horizon” specific to each ecosystem type? • What is the significance of regional and global-scale drivers, in particular climate change, in the genesis of transboundary problems? • Describe how understanding and managing multiple causality in a transboundary water context is undertaken?

  43. How are variable spatial and temporal scales in IW projects accounted for? • What approaches were used to understand/assess the coupling of social and ecological systems?

  44. Development and use of indicators to support IW projects (3 Core Questions) • How did the projects help build and implement sound indicators and monitoring strategies to support SAP implementation and/or ultimately assess the achievement of environmental and social benefits? • How can we identify effective proxy indicators for use in IW projects? • How to make better use of appropriate science and best practices for Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis? Note that there may be a need for a comparative analysis of current GEF IW indicators and those used by the DPSWR framework.

  45. Application of science for adaptive management - (5 Core Questions) • Was engagement of both local and wider science communities utilised in IW projects? If not, how can improvements be made? • Is scientific expertise and local knowledge well applied within the IW focal area, particularly in accessing existing baseline information, new findings on methodologies, science breakthroughs and scanning for emerging issues?

  46. Identify lessons learned for linking science and policy implementation, including policy formulation and broader governance issues • Is adaptive management happening? How to better understand and effectively communicate the scientific dimensions of adaptive management to different user groups? • How to better communicate newly-synthesized science knowledge to stakeholders within and external to GEF?

  47. Reflections and discussion

More Related