Mid term review : unsatisfactory project

Mid term review : unsatisfactory project

• direct recommendations i – ix• revision of deliverables period 1 &

2 ,within 3 months• reduce scope: (a) users, (b) themes, (c)

Russian version, (d) field; SIA/IA• more active approach: websites,

dissemination, cooperation with other projects

Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008

Reduced scope

• Environmental, land use and social impacts, as in original DoW – 12 chapters

• Focus on the primary user, EC officer, maybe sectoral issues

• Russian version can be reduced variant

• SIA retained


(i) A revised DOW

– done, contains points i-vi and viii – contains revised budget distribution

identical to latest CPF– has more graphs on methodology, but

should be looked over for consistency and: is the main idea/potential communicated?


(ii) internal communication and management plan

• project management group• panels for methodology and e-

textbook• end-of-month meetings • collaborative spaces• chapter teams contribute to website

and survey other projects


(iii) strenghtened advisory board

• Carys Jones, Peter Groffman and Jorma Enkenberg as old members

• new: Phoebe Koundouri (economist), Michael Chernet (JRC), EC staff??

• Advisory board actions in 2009

- when the revised draft chapters are uploaded early 2009, - attending Workshop 4 :‘editing the e-textbook’ preliminarily set for

March 2009 in Brussels, group meeting and statement - in summer 2009 when the chapters are finalized and submitted for

testing (see WP6) and then submitted for an external peer-review.

According to their own decisions as to dividing the work, the advisory board will report to the project coordinator giving recommendations on the quality and orientation of the e-tool.


(iv) engaging stakeholders

through the e-LUP work process of contacting EC for information, material, opinions etc.

a stakeholder session at the extra Workshop in Brussels, March 2009

training sessions as part of WP6 (months 42-44) possibly, a launching event of the finalized tool requisite: “profiling” of primary stakeholders Cooperation with other projects who have done

interviews etc.



(vi) external & internal review

– INTERNAL: Each chapter editor/coeditors from the project should evaluate at least the chapter assigned to her/him by a random ordering (DoW, p. ). A detailed critique statement structured through a short standard form is required from each reviewer.

– EXTERNAL: A comprehensive external peer review will be implemented. Engaging seven expert reviewers is planned.

– ALSO: Inviting contributions from other projects will give feedback on contents, ‘the chapter pages’ on the project website will stimulate internal feedback on contents.


(vii) Survey of related projects

• a new WP2 report exists, the 1st version• about 50 pages, describes other projects and

their relevance for e-LUP• but, a 2nd version is needed – a closer analysis of

the related projects will be of great help in (a) tailoring the new e-LUP methodology, (b) selecting projects to be contacted, (c) conclusions on state of the art in SIA tools for our Chapter 3 ’Tools’.


(vii) Survey of related projects– The survey has the following aims:– review the EC rationale and perceived needs behind the calls

issued in framework programmes for a batch of projects focused on SIA and SD.

– review recent projects focused on integrative tools for land use related modelling, and impact assessment.

– review recent projects on global change, environmental impacts and ecosystems.

– review recent IA tools & concepts oriented projects, including institutional and economic sustainability scenarios.

– also explore other topics, not obviously connected to SIA or SD.– short list projects relevant at chapter level (of the e-LUP

textbook).


Related issues

Projects:Sust A testIndilinkMatisseForesceneMosus

Carbo-EuropeNitro-EuropeAlarmAdamAquastress

SeamlessSensorPlurelSpicosaEforwoodSmile

Related tools

Projects:Sust A testIndilinkMatisseForesceneMosus

SeamlessSensorPlurelSpicosaEforwood

Related case studies

ProjectsSeamlessSensorPlurelSpicosaEforwoodMatisse

Relevant models

Projects:ExterneMulinoSuforTranscendAlarm

SeamlessSensorPlurelSpicosaEforwoodMatisse

(viii) time chart / workplan


(ix) updated Period 2+ reports


later today...

WP 6 Testing

• testing in 5 jurisdictions, originally 3

• planning of questionnaires

• external review and compilation of results


Website energized

– updated– upsized– open and more engaging?


A new forum – run by chapter teams

Updated pages, new pages

outreach

Better formulations

materials downloadable

Revised WP2 report, outline


• main focus is on training and decision support, encompassing four main elements: (1) treatment of issues, (2) of policies, (3) of tools and finally (4) assessment support.

• focus on e-learning, the added-value of which should be explored maximally (interactivity, multimedia).

• a rigorous analytical framework, DPSIR-framework, SENSOR benchmark?

Revised WP3 report outline


Meaningful integration of cases studies into the matrix should be guided by the Methodology

The hierarchical chain ‘textbook – cases – models’ should be observed, but both cases and models also have stand-alone status e.g. on the e-tool side.

Conclusions

• we think we have valuable case studies• we think the model visualisations will

be useful• we know that the challenge is the

QUALITY of the e-textbook/e-tool



Thank you!

Thank you!

intense learning process

Documents

Mid term review : unsatisfactory project