Third IDMP CEE workshop: Peer Review Group Report 2 by Henny A. J. van Lanen

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

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)

 Progress Report
Milestone(s) of an
Activity

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

Overview of assessments

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)

General observations
50 most
occurring
terms in
2nd PRG
report

 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

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)

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)

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

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

 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

 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. 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

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

Putting IDMP Activities
in clear concept

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

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)

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)

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

- 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

- 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

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

Third IDMP CEE workshop: Peer Review Group Report 2 by Henny A. J. van Lanen

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Third IDMP CEE workshop: Peer Review Group Report 2 by Henny A. J. van Lanen

Semelhante a Third IDMP CEE workshop: Peer Review Group Report 2 by Henny A. J. van Lanen (20)

Mais de Global Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe

Mais de Global Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe (20)

Último

Último (20)

Third IDMP CEE workshop: Peer Review Group Report 2 by Henny A. J. van Lanen