Evaluation of the communication tools and

Transcription

Evaluation of the communication tools and methodology
Annex 18
CarpathCC Egerszalók Workshop
Final report for SR5
Evaluation
of the communication tools and methodology
of the Egerszalók Workshop
Reporting Date
25/02/2013
SR5
Supporting Stakeholder Interactions
1
Evaluation of the communication tools and methodology
CarpathCC Egerszalók Workshop
Table of contents
1. BACKGROUND OF THE EGERSZALÓK WORKSHOP ............................................. 3
2.AIMS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE EGERSZALÓK WORKSHOP ............................ 4
3. TASKS .......................................................................................................................... 5
4. EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNICATION TOOLS AND METHODOLOGY.......... 7
4.1. Communication tools ........................................................................................ 7
4.1.1. Questionnaires/Information sheets ................................................................7
4.1.2. Newsletters ...................................................................................................8
4.1.3. Website – www.carpathcc.eu.........................................................................9
4.1.4. Brochure .................................................................................................... 10
4.1.5. Press communication .................................................................................. 10
4.1.6. Image element tools .................................................................................... 11
4.2. Methodology..................................................................................................... 11
4.2.1. Representatives/ stakeholders ..................................................................... 11
4.2.2. Draft program and facilitating the workshop ................................................ 12
2
Evaluation of the communication tools on the Egerszalók Workshop
BACKGROUND OF THE EGERSZALÓK WORKSHOP
1.
Stakeholder involvement is getting more and more important worldwide in parallel with expansion
of scientific results and experiences of the recent years’ climate change projects. The need of
identifying stakeholders and interacting with them were expressed in the vulnerability assessment related closely to CarpathCC - made by the CARPIVIA project.
As an organic continuation of the recent progresses CarpathCC project would be the most detailed,
segmented and also the most practical project in the Carpathian region, and probably Europe-wide
Stakeholder involvement takes place as an independent Special Request (SR5) in the CarpathCC
Framework Project which is an extremely important task for all project participants. The following
decisions were made as a result of the fine-tuning with the Steering Committee and the CARPIVIA
management:
There were planned to organise 1 scientific and 2 stakeholder workshops held by the following
locations and time:

Stara Lesná, Slovakia, May 2012

Eger, Hungary 24- 25th January 2013

Sovata, Romania 21- 22nd March 2013
Figure 1. SR5. Locations of Focal areas and related workshops
3
It is essential to connect SR5 work with the vulnerability assessment of the five focal areas
observed in the region by SR6 because:

Most of the scientific information are provided here that can be integrated to the workshops;

The results are/will be used to create a working model and methodology for the entire
region;

The characteristics of the focal areas represent the main regional problems;

This is how the project can integrate stakeholder feedback and preferences into proposals.
It is very important to highlight that the workshops and SR5 activities follow the internal
development of the project in close cooperation with the related SR work groups. SR5 also follows
and pays attention to the results of relevant SRs that can be evaluated, discussed within the
stakeholder workshops.
To reach the best results of the workshops, the following resources are crucial:

The stakeholder database, workshop methodology and facilitator and speaker identification
are identified and coordinated within cooperation with the other SRs;

Synergies with other SRs like SR6 and beside that SR1, SR3 and SR4 that are in close
connection with the workshops as they will present their first scientific results and
researches in the workshops;

Scientific results and partial results of other SRs too;

Segmented interactive communication tools are needed (stakeholder website, newsletters,
brochures, project image etc.).
The stakeholder involvement is a permanent interactive information flow not an educational task.
The workshops are focal points of this information flow.
2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE EGERSZALÓK WORKSHOP
The main aim of this event was to discuss the feasibility of proposed adaptation measures of
grasslands and forests to climate change in the Bükk National Park and Tatra National Park.
The venue of the first 2-day workshop was in Egerszalók, Hungary being one of the focal areas of
SR6 (Bükk National Park). The main topic of this workshop was to discuss the most optimal
adaptation measures suggested by SR1, SR2, SR3, SR4 and SR6.
This workshop focused on the following focal areas:
 Bükk, Hungary;

Tatra, Slovakia and Poland.
Participants were invited from 3 countries due to budgetary constrains:
 Hungary;

Slovakia;

Czech Republic.
4
The general objective of the workshops is to contribute to identifying the most feasible and most
cost effective adaptation measures in selected focal areas and sectors.
Consequently, the following specific objectives were set for this event:

Introduce the CarpathCC project and disseminate information about the achieved results.

Depending on the progress of SRs (SR1, 2, 3, 4, 6) methods and outcomes were integrated
into the activities related to the focal areas. Representatives of the mentioned SRs introduced
some ideas to the stakeholders who reacted about these results on the knowledge basis and
interest of the focal areas.

SR4 selected a subset of measures receiving a positive appraisal and assessed as "suitable"
for the Carpathian (sub) region in the appraisal.

Discussing these listed measures and its features, to fine-tune the suitability analysis to
eventually end up after that with proposing 3 measures that was the focus of a more detailed
analysis (preferably on the focal areas). Measures were discussed with relevant stakeholders,
during which the suitability analysis was fine-tuned and corrected/adapted depending on the
progress achieved by SR4.

Instruct local stakeholders depending on the first results of SR2, SR3 and SR4, and to ask
them to collect information that can be applied in SR6.

Inspiring regional/local stakeholders to discuss the results achieved by the international
consortium and contribute to assessing the feasibility of proposed adaptation
options/policies/measures with regard to the focal areas as first of all and the whole
Carpathian as well.
3. TASKS
In line with the above the following tasks and activities are foreseen:
Task 1: Fine-tune the scope and in-depth assessment (completed)
Task 2: Stakeholder workshops:
2013 January Eger
2013 March Sovata
According to the SR5 tasks, we can make a difference between activities relating to the wokshop
communication and activities relating to the methodology of the workshops by the followings:
Communication activities:
Act. 1. (2.1) Editing questionnaires and making summary of the questionnaires provides before
and after the workshops
Act. 2 (2.2): Project image elements and tools (design, aditing, producing)
Act. 3 (2.3): Brochures for the Eger and Sovata workshops (design, producing, editing)
5
Act. 4 (2.4) Multilingual stakeholder website for the whole project (developing, editing, design,
translation, to 7 languages, site management)
Act. 5 (2.5) Nine (3*3) multilingual pre-invitation newsletters, invitation and follow up newsletter
before and after the 2 workshops (developing, editing, design, translation, sending)
Act 6 (2.6) CarpathCC press-service: European and Central European media coverage about
relevant topics, sending monthly segmented press review for the project participants for the 16
months
Act 7 (2.8) In every quarter a year sending press releases for the national news agencies,
coordinating and writing basic text of press releases (editing, coordinating)
Act 8 (2.7) Translation press releases
Act 11 (2.12) coordinating activities with SR1, SR2, SR3, SR4 and SR6 for the Eger and Sovata
workshop
Act 13 (2.14) Eger workshop organizing (booking venue, arranging hotel, travel, catering, etc.)
Act 14 (2.15) Sovata workshop organizing (booking venue, arranging hotel, travel, catering, etc.)
Activities relating to the workshop me thodology:
Act 10 (2.11) identification of stakeholders, preparing database for the Eger and the Sovata
workshop
Act 12 (2.13) drafting the program for the Eger and Sovata workshop
Act 15 (2.16) identifying experts, inviting speakers for the Eger and Sovata workshops
Act 16 (2.17) elaborating workshop methodology, facilitation technique for the Eger and Sovata
workshops
Act 17 (2.18) chairing the workshop, facilitating discussions of the Eger and Sovata workshops
4. EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNICATION TOOLS AND METHODOLOGY
4.1. Communication tools
Connected with the communication activities, communication tools as deliverables were provided
relating to the Egerszalók workshop organising.
SR5.T2.A1.D1 DELIVERABLE Preparing infosheets that will be sent to the stakeholders before
and after the workshops attach to the pre-invitation and follow-up newsletter
SR5.T2.A1.D2 DELIVERABLE Preparing infosheets that will be sent to the stakeholders before
and after the workshops attach to the preinvitation and follow-up newsletter
SR5.T2.A2.D1 DELIVERABLE Image elements and tools
6
SR5.T2.A3.D1 DELIVERABLE Brochures for Egerszalók and Sovata workshop
SR5.T2.A4.D1 DELIVERABLE Multilingual stakeholder website
SR5.T2.A5.D1 DELIVERABLE Multilingual pre-invitation newsletter, invitation and follow up
newsletter for the 2. workshop
SR5.T2.A6.D1 DELIVERABLE CarpathCC Press-service media coverage
SR5.T2.A8.D1 DELIVERABLE Press releases in every quarter of year
SR5.T2.A13.D1 DELIVERABLE Eger workshop organized
4.1.1.
Questionnaires/Information sheets
The main aim of these questionnaires was to help to form approaches that focus on the stakeholders
as qualitative research tools and also to help stakeholders to be prepared for the workshops and to
be able to build in their experiences.
A short questionnaire, an information sheet was sent out to the stakeholders registered for the
workshop 6 weeks before the event in order to have a view about their thoughts and experience
relating to the climate change in the Carpathians, and also to have more information about their
professional work and their English language skills. (Annex 1) The summary of the received
information sheet is found in the Annex 2.
Regarding the fact that the range of return of questionnaires is usually quite low, a simplified
information sheet was prepared with 3 questions about the personal opinion and experience
according to the climate change and the related tasks such as:
 What is your background and present role/responsibility relating to the climate change?
 According to the climate change, what is the main issue in your related area? What do you
consider as the main challenge of your special field of responsibility taking into account the
global climate change?
 What kind of adaptation measures do you think can be applicable in your area?
Some general questions about the personal contact details, field(s) of professional interest and the
level of English language knowledge were added to the questionnaire.
However, the information sheet was short (2 pages), only the 48% of the registered participants
filled it out and sent it back. Although we got a general view of the participants' experience relating
to the climate change issues, it would have been more useful to get some more detailed information
about the general knowledge, gaps and needs of the invited organisations or the activities have been
already made by them taking the climate change into consideration.
Based on the research of the participants' English language knowledge in the information sheets,
the working groups' facilitating language(s) was/were easily chosen.
7
A short questionnaire as an evaluation sheet (Annex 3) was sent out to the participants in 2 weeks
after the event in order to summarize their opinion, experience and suggestions. 23% of the
participants answered the questions. The summary of their evaluations is found in Annex 4.
In spite of this low rate of return, the feed-backs and observations shared with us were promising
and useful.
In order to reach a higher rate, the evaluation questionnaire will be distributed before the closing
session on the spot too.
4.1.2.
Newsletters
A CarpathCC newsletter as an optional and additional element of keeping in touch with the
stakeholders during the project were sent out. In order to share more information with them about
the project and the coming event, there were 2 newsletters sent out before the workshop:
 a pre-invitation newsletter (Annex 6) - 6 weeks before and
 an invitation (Annex 7) - 2 weeks before the workshop.
Both of them were sent out via e-mail with attached materials (such as invitation letter, draft
programme, registration form, information sheet, final agenda) which were also downloadable from
the project website.
The follow-up newsletter (Annex 8) was prepared to summarize the experience of the event and to
share the workshop materials, photos and results with the participants and also to say thank you for
the productive contribution and cooperation on the spot.
Our previous aim to share preliminary results of the project based on the inputs of the SRs was
changed to inform stakeholders generally about the CarpathCC project and the workshop focusing
on their role of the proposed adaptation measures selection. The lack of interest of the relevant
stakeholders we experienced during the preparation methods of the workshop convinced us to
contact them personally via phone calls and even via personally consultations.
4.1.3.
Website – www.carpathcc.eu
A website is an invaluable and obligatory external communication tool for the project. It is the main
source of information about the project for people outside the project, for the stakeholders, so it
needs to contain the right information in a clear and accessible design and structure.
The website gives an overview about the project, its objectives, progress and results, partnership
and their contacts including a section for the press (with the latest press releases, photos).
As previously agreed the CARPIVIA project is linked in to the CarpathCC project and the same is
expected from CARPIVIA.
The structure of the project website:
 About the project (introduction of the project, the contributing organisations, the members
of the Consortium and the stakeholder programme)
8
 Changing waters
 Impacts on ecosystem
 Changing landscapes
 Focal areas
 How to adapt?
 Events and workshops
 Press Centre
 Photo gallery
 Downloads
 Contacts
The design of the website can be found in ANNEX 17.
The general information, the invitation letter, draft agenda and the press release were also available
in Hungarian and Slovakian too on the project site. After the workshop, all the workshop materials,
presentations and photos taken on the spot were also uploaded onto the CarpathCC web page.
It was the common and steady source of information used by the participants before and after the
workshop.
4.1.4.
Brochure
The brochure informs the readers, the stakeholders about the project and its Partners.
The CarpathCC brochure was designed, edited and printed two months before the workshop (Annex
5). Brochures were distributed at the workshop and were placed in the conference package. It is
available in digital English version uploaded on the web site, included in the Downloads.
The CarpathCC brochures were distributed too on the COP18 side event of the EU Climate Policy
Conference in Doha in December 2012 in order to reach a wider range of communication of the
project and to build a basic reputation of it.
By the stakeholders' feed-backs relating to the brochure (taken place in Egerszalók), it is nice,
communicative and transparent, user friendly and well-sized.
4.1.5.
Press communication
Press releases
9
Before the workshop, a press releases (Annex 10) was prepared in order to inform the media. It was
translated into Hungarian and Slovakian (Annex 11-12), and send for the national news agencies.
Due to a good cooperation with our Slovakian project partners, it became possible to reach
international level of press communication of CarpathCC project.
Press coverage
As the press service of the project and the workshop including the European and Central European
media coverage about them, the published articles, broadcasted television reports and
interviews are listed in Annex 9.
Due to the successful communication activities, the CarpathCC project was in the news in
Hungary, in Slovakia and in Romania too.
4.1.6. Image element tools
As basic image element tools, the project slogan and logo were used in every visual way of
communication with the stakeholders such as in the invitation, in the newsletters, in the brochure.
Each presentations held by the project partners during the event were prepared in the CarpathCC
ppt presentation template (Annex 18).
In order to enhance the project image, based on the CarpathCC logo's colour and unique web
design, a common design was planned for the brochure, for the CarpathCC newsletters and for the
invitation as well.
According to the field communication, it would be more demonstrative to display a bigger-sized
visual communication material on the spot.
4.2. Methodology
Connected with the methodological activities, the following deliverable was provided relating to the
Egerszalók workshop organising:
SR5.T2.A10.D1 DELIVERABLE Database for stakeholders in the region consulted with SR6
According to the methodology of the Egerszalók workshop, there were several activities listed
under '3. Tasks' above such as





identification of stakeholders , preparing database for the workshop
drafting the program for the workshop
identifying experts, inviting speakers for the workshops
elaborating workshop methodology, facilitation technique for the workshops
chairing the workshop, facilitating discussions of the workshops
10
4.2.1.
Representatives/ stakeholders
53% of the invited stakeholders listed by the focal area leaders and project partners in the
stakeholder list (Annex 13) accepted our invitation and participated on the event.
The composition rates of the participants were the followings:




27% (ground) water;
33% protected area (Tatra and Bukk);
4 % researcher,
36% representatives of institutions (national decision makers, government).
The final list of the participants is found in Annex 15.
Although the workshop venue was an attractive and unique place and the participation on the event
was free of charge, it was extremely difficult to persuade the stakeholders to come and to
participate.
Thanks to that, the composition of the participants could have been matched more with the subject.
Although adaptation measures of forests, sub-surface water and grasslands were on the agenda, only
the 14% of the participants had a background in grassland management.
4.2.2.
Draft program and facilitating the workshop
SR5 is responsible to ensure stakeholders involvement to the CC project. It is very closely related to
other SRs, in particular with SR6, since the first workshop topics were to support activities focusing
on two focal areas, namely for Tatra and Bukk. The event had double purpose:
1. providing with information for local (Hungarian and Slovakian) stakeholders on the
CarpathCC project (in the plenary session)
2. getting feedback from the local stakeholders about:
◦ how they see the problems in their own country,
◦ what could be the solutions,
◦ how feasible they find the proposed adaptation measures etc.
(in two parallel sessions, one for Tatra Mountains, the other for Bukk Mountain)
Although the plenary sessions was held in English, based on the research of the participants'
English language knowledge, it was more effective and productive to provide the translations of
every presentation and material in Hungarian and in Slovakian too. As we were aware of the
language barriers from the stakeholders, we envisaged to have the stakeholder consultations in two
groups, one for the Slovakian facilitated by the Slovakian project partners, Tomas Hlasny and Peter
Fleisher in Slovakian, and the other for the Hungarians facilitated by Istvan Zsuffa in Hungarian.
Holding the working group sessions in their native language, we could involve the stakeholders
deeply in the discussions relating to the climate change issues and adaptation measures.
The final agenda (Annex 14) of the event was worked out with the contribution of the project
participants involved into the SR2, SR3, SR4 and SR6.
Taking into consideration that the stakeholders might not be active enough, even if they could speak
in their own language, we decided to get 2-3 speakers agreed (again in the national language) to
11
speak about some relevant climate change related problems, potential ways how to scope with it.
The Hungarian presentations were focused on the surface water, grasslands and forestry
management, the Slovakian presentations were related to grasslands, wetlands and forestry.
In both working group, there were 2 speakers (stakeholders) outside of the project in order to make
stakeholders active and talkative and to give the floor for free discussion.
As a social program, a nice dinner was organised including a wine tasting. It was a suitable
opportunity to get closer to the stakeholders and to get to know more about their personal
experience and opinion relating to the climate change issues, and even to make a good relationship
with them for the longer future.
On the second day of the workshop, the summaries of the working group sessions including with
the list of discussed and suggested adaptation measures were presented. After the closing ceremony,
a site visit was organised to the Bükk National Park. The main aim of the guided tour was to
introduce the grassland management activities of the Bükk National Park. It was also one part of the
ground truthing activity of SR6.
Photos taken on the workshop discussions and at the site visit can be found in Annex 19-20.
The detailed evaluation of the methodology is found in the evaluation report of the methodology of
Egerszalók Workshop.
12
LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: Infosheet for Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 2: Summary of the infosheets of Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 3: Evaluation sheet for Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 4: Summary of the evaluation sheet of Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 5: CarpathCC brochure
ANNEX 6: CarpathCC pre-invitation newsletter for the Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 7: CarpathCC invitation for the Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 8: CarpathCC follow-up newsletter for the Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 9: CarpathCC Egerszalók Workshop – Media coverage
ANNEX 10: CarpathCC Press Release - English
ANNEX 11: CarpathCC Press Release - Hungarian
ANNEX 12: CarpathCC Press Release - Slovakian
ANNEX 13: Stakeholder list for the Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 14: Agenda of the Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 15: Participants list of Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 16: Methodology of the stakeholder involvement
ANNEX 17: CarpathCC website design
ANNEX 18: CarpathCC ppt presentation template
ANNEX 19: Photos taken at the Egerszalók Workshop
ANNEX 20: Photos taken at the site visit in Bükk National Park
13
ANNEX 1: Infosheet for Egerszalók Workshop (2 pages)
14
15
ANNEX 2: Summary of the infosheets of Egerszalók Workshop (6 pages)
SUMMARY
What is your background and present role/responsibility relatin g to the climate change?
3. In the field of environmental (including climate) strategy, our institute is responsible for the
preparation of environmental strategies, plans, concepts, action plans and for the data
collection (data processing, background research, interpretation and monitoring). (A.
Bartókné, Hungary)
4. Water resources are highly sensitive to climate variation in all time and space scales. The
main features of spatial variation of run-off related to climate zonality are presented for the
present climate. Water balance models are seems to usable methods for evaluating the
regional hydrological impacts of global climatic changes. The main impacts of climate
change on the water resources are as a result of changes in temperature and precipitation
patterns and a higher inter-annual variability. These seasonable changes will effect water
availability and water quality. The water resources management balance sheet shows the
relationship between the availability of water resources, their usages and defi cits. (E.
Becsákné, Hungary)
5. In the field of environmental (including climate) strategy, our institute is responsible for the
preparation of environmental strategies, plans, concepts, action plans and for the data
collection (data processing, background research, interpretation and monitoring). (Zs.
Debnár, Hungary)
6. The climate change has significant impact on the water resources our company manages.
The extreme weather hardens the continuous drinking water supply, much and little
precipitation too causes serious problems in our water source areas. (G. Kiss, Hungary)
7. My responsibility relating to CC is the drought related matters: e.g. I participated in the work
of formulating the National Drought Strategy. Beyond being the Hungarian national focal
point of UNCCD I’m member of the following international working groups/parties:
2. EU Working Party on International Environment Issues on Desertification
3. EU CIS Water Scarcity & Drought Expert Group
4. UNCCD COP Bureau (P. Molnar, Hungary)
16
5. General background/profession is climate policy in a horizontal manner – thus climate
change is very much in the focus of my professional life. (J. Feiler, Hungary)
8. Background: plant ecology, forest ecology, landscape ecology. Present interests: ecological
risk assessments of Norway spruce monoculture decay; assessment of changes in
ecosystem functions performance and ecosystem services provision, due to climate change
direct and indirect effects (Prof. Cudlin, Czech Republic)
9. Forestry. Nature conservation, ecological education and coordination of the Research
station of the SF TANAP. No direct link with CC (M. Sturcel, Slovakia)
10. In the area of the City of High Tatras is the Tatra National Park, which is very important to
the city from the perspective of spa treatments and tourism in summer and winter season.
These activities are affected by unstable snow cover in winter and temperature fluctuations
during all seasons. (P. Novak, Slovakia)
11. I am professional environmentalist and deal with species ecology and conservation.
Recently I participate at implementation of EC funded projects focused on butterflies
conservation and restoration of non-forest habitats (mainly grasslands) through
implementation of traditional land-use practices; project focused on biodiversity
conservation in urban areas (mainly birds and bats in buildings); and field research and
monitoring of Natura 2000 species (mainly molluscs) in Slovakia. All these actions are
linked with CC issues because the target species and habitats are significantly affected by
climate change. It is obvious that nature-friendly practices need to be applied to combat CC
and decrease its negative impact on human livelihood as well as biodiversity in general.
(Mgr. L. Vavrova PhD, Slovakia)
According to the climate change, what is the main issue in your related area? What do you
consider as the main challenge of your special field of responsibility taking into account the
global climate change?
12. Changed quantity and distribution of precipitation causes unpredictable water use supply.
(A. Bartókné, Hungary)
13. To improve knowledge and data collection: A water scarcity and drought information
system throughout Europe, and Research and technological development opportunities. (E.
Becsákné, Hungary)
17
14. Changed quantity and distribution of precipitation causes unpredictable water use
supply.(Zs. Debnár)
15. How to manage the fluctuating volume of water recharge caused by the extreme
weather?(G. Kiss, Hungary)
16. Significant changes in temperature and precipitation are expected, namely the rise in the
mean temperature in each seasons and decrease in the annual mean precipitation with
changing precipitation pattern (more in winter and less in summer). Climate change will
cause a probable shift of the seasons and we could experience the strengthening and
growing frequency of some extreme weather phenomena: floods and droughts. These
problems will seriously hit the Carpathian region and also Hungary. (P. Molnar, Hungary)
17. Main task is to mobilize, coordinate and provide framework and appropriate conditi ons on
specific fields, to promote information flow and synergies among specific fields. (J. Feiler,
Hungary)
18. The main issues are:
18.1 The risk of decay of even aged Norway spruce monocultures
18.2 Biodiversity decrease in cultural landscape, caused by climate change itself, as well
as by land use due by climate change and respective accepted adaptation measures
18.3 Finalization of ecosystem service valuation system and its implementation among
perspective stakeholders in given (mostly at least partially protected) ar ea, (e.g. using
DPSIR framework) (Prof. Cudlin, Czech Republic)
19. Forest health status and in the Tatra Mountain (M. Sturcel, Slovakia)
20. The main issue of climate changes is significant in weather extremes with the negative
impact to the tourist season in High Tatras. As the main challenge I consider the reduction
of flooding risks of torrential rains, extreme drought, strong winds and eroded soil. (P.
Novak, Slovakia)
21. The main challenge is to convince public and decision makers that development can go
hand-in-hand with CC measures and biodiversity conservation. It is necessary that the
government support actions such as development of ski resorts, urban areas, using of
energy and water resources in accordance with biodiversity conservation standards and
while respecting nature conservation objectives. (Mgr. L. Vavrova PhD, Slovakia)
18
What kind of adaptation measures do you think can be applicable in your area?
22. Climate change effect to reduce we need inter-nation comprehensive measures and
environment saving activities in the field of water resource management and environment
protection. (A. Bartókné, Hungary)
23. The water resources management tasks done by NeKI:
• The usage of surface and groundwater’s data collection, recording processing and
assessment.
• Determining of the volume of the surface and groundwater resources, the complete
process of public records on water supply-specific data.
• Preparation of national, regional and provincial: river, aquifer water and basin balance
sheets.
• Monitoring of the country's natural and socio-economic waterways - broken down on a
regional and national scale per catchment/aquifer.
• Preparation of water basin and water resources management planning, water traffic
forecasting tasks, tests, model calculations.
• Participation in international water resource management working groups (ICPDR, trans boundary water commissions’ work).
• Contribution in the preparation of legislation, modification and preparation of background
materials of water resources management. (E. Becsákné, Hungary)
24. Climate change effect to reduce we need inter-nation comprehensive measures and
environment saving activities in the field of water resource management and environment
protection. (Zs. Debnár, Hungary)
25. The following adaptation measures could serve as tools to mitigate the effects of floods,
droughts or both:
25.1 financial aid (tax, funds, loans, etc.)
25.2 improve water retention
25.3 awareness raising
25.4 sharing of best practices
25.5 demand management
25.6 developing drought management plans
25.7 promote and implement water recycling
25.8 promote efficient use of water in order to reduce water consumption in all sectors
25.9 promote and develop water efficient products
25.10 improve irrigation efficiency (P. Molnar, Hungary)
26. Since I do not focus on a specific focus area, this question is not really applicable for
me.(J. Feiler, Hungary)
19
27. The applicable adaptation measures are:
27.1 Biodiversity maintenance (increasing where necessary, as e.g. in spruce
monocultures)
27.2 Increasing of the forest ecosystem stability of forest stands, most endange red by
climate change
27.3 Increasing of the ecological stability at landscape level by implementing of the
European Landscape Convention and EECONET approach (Prof. Cudlin, Czech
Republic)
28. Long-term..active care (management) of forests (M. Sturcel, Slovakia)
29. The City of High Tatras in behalf of extreme rainfalls was involved to a national project of
Landscape Revitalisation and Integrated River Basin Management Programme. In that
Programme were built different water retention elements. Measures from the Pro gramme
have a beneficial influence in reduction of flooding risks and drought risks down the
watercourse. I think these or similar measures could be applicable in our area in more
volume. (P. Novak, Slovakia)
30. Return to implementation of traditional land-use/agricultural practices (biofarms, grazing,
etc.) provides benefits to both human livelihood and nature conservation. In the recent
inconvenient economic situation in European countries it is often the only way to keep
people in rural areas. Supporting of eco-tourism activities would significantly contribute to
decreasing the recent rate of habitats destruction, in particular habitats of the European
importance. (Mgr. L. Vavrova PhD, Slovakia)
20
ANNEX 3: Evaluation sheet for Egerszalók Workshop (1 page)
21
ANNEX 4: Summary of the evaluation sheet of Egerszalók Workshop (5 pages)
MARK →
ELEMENT↓
    
 

excellent
very
average
good
1
Event
111
bad
unsatisfactor
y
11
Programme
2
Materials for the
111
1
Event
3
Quality of
111
1
1
111
1
11
presenters
4
Quality of
presentations
5
Presentation
1
method
6
Tempo
7
Event
1111
11
11
1
111
organization
8
My expectations
are fulfilled
22

Did you consider information given to be applicable to your future work?

Yes, the topic of the workshop was similar to my interests, information, and contacts could
be useful for me in future.

Yes.

I consider the information given useful. It was good to have the collection of adaptation
measures and to hear the views of stakeholders from different sectors.

In my future work all presentation will be very useful because the collection of new
adaptation methods completed my knowledge about the impact of climate change on water
resources.
2. Which presentation was most useful?

The presentation from Arcadis ( Veronique and Peter)

It was not a conference, it was a workshop. Therefore the most useful were for me results
from discussion.

Among all of the interesting presentations for me the most useful were the presentations
“Past and projected future climate in the Carpathian basin” and the one dealing with the
adaptation measures.

The following 2 presentations were the most interesting for me:
3.
Objectives and results of the project ’Rehabilitation and management of grasslands
and pastures in the operational area of the Directorate of Bükk National Park,
Representative of the Bükk National Park Directorate, Hungary
4.
Impact of climate change on the forests and sub-surface water resources of the Bükk
mountains by Éva Kun (SMARAGD-GHS, Hungary)

There were couple of presentations I really liked (Fleischer, Bükk National Park, SzalaiBalint,..).
Suggestions, remarks:

I suggest that you should send the questions listed in advance before discussion in the
workshop to elaborate more complex and adequate answers.

To deliver part of final „closed” meeting of project partners to discussion with invited
experts.

Themes were actual and interesting, I am waiting for final results
23
Observations:
31. It is important that participants can briefly introduce themselves and express their
expectations and contributions at the beginning of the workshop. This takes time of course
but there are techniques to make it work in a relatively short time. In this way you have a
chance to adjust expectations and/or adapt the programme to the expectations.
32. The composition of work groups was not well prepared and the interest of the participants
did at least for a part not match with the subjects discussed; although adaptation measures of
forests and grasslands were on the agenda quite a number of participants had a background
in water/hydrology and only one or two in grassland management.
33. The questions for work groups were not clearly expressed leading to delayed start;
Personally I believe that you get more out of the work groups when they are asked open
questions; like; what adaptation measures (operational, organisational, institutional) for
grasslands can you think of; what adaptation measures for forests can you think of? Now
they were forced to look at the pre-prepared list and did not come up with additional ones
(like those on water management and institutional aspects). A two tear approach would be
my preference; first step brainstorm about adaptation measures, feed back by work groups to
make a full list. Second step; discussion in work groups to identify the most feasible ones.
34. This brings me to my next remark; there was far too little time for work group discussions
and feedback. And it’s much more effective when the work groups present their own results.
35. Lesson one for a workshop facilitator; check the venue and equipment at least half an hour
before the start of the workshop. Now we had a significant delay the 2 nd day because the
beamer etc did not work.
Overall recommendation for next time; allocate much more time for work group discussions, try to
attract participants that have an interest/knowledge of the subject (I hope next time water, wetlands
and tourism will be on the agenda) and apply a more interactive approach to the workshop.
24
Project Partners' evaluation
Agenda and methodology:
1.
were good in general, maybe even less time next time for general presentations and more for the
interactive part. Also some free-time should be included, it was too tight schedule.
2.
I think that the workshop’s participants must be informed in advance about the activities and
also abut the methodology (for example about the adaptation measures discussed at Egerszalók
workshop through working groups). Regarding both oral presentations (for Bükk and Tatra)
within WGs, we think it was inappropriate not taking into account a translation. At least for
Bükk the slides were in English, but for Tatra even the slides were in Slovakian. We expect at
least an English translation of Slovakian presentation to be upload on ftp. We are aware that for
stakeholders it is difficult to present in English, the same situation will be probably valid for
Romanian stakeholders, but it is necessary to provide a translation.
3.
Regarding oral presentations for Tatra, it would be better if the slides were in English.
4.
Agenda: leave more time for workshop discussions. The presentations on the focal areas were
very useful i thought. Maybe we do not need 3 presentations as it takes quite a bit of time, but 2
at least are very useful.
5.
Methodology: workshop should be prepared more in detail 1 month in advance of the workshop.
The task leaders can inform the SR5 team on what they want to do and the SR5 team could
come up with different possibilities of holding the workshop. Then, there could be a discussion,
and roles and responsibilities and the entire planning of the workshop should be outlined in
detail. For example, during the workshop i was sitting with the grassland group but there was no
representation of the other project team members in the other working groups. This could have
been organised better.
Communication (web, invitation, comm. with the stakeholders):

Very good

Not so sure how this went. All outputs should be made available on the website (i guess this
will still need to happen). Thanks for getting this large stakeholder group at the workshop. I
think we should have some more Carpathian-wide experts (grasslands, forests, wetlands)
there, as well as representation from NGOs. Furthermore, not all Carpathian countries were
represented.
25
Infosheets (questions, answers):
I believe the answers were too general to allow focal area site managers to reflect on this. Due to the
delay we were not able to send them the list in advance, but it may have helped for them having the
background information.
Participants/stakeholders: number, composition, activity

Number was good, maybe next time more participants from higher level, e.g. Ministries.

I suggest for the next workshop to involve first an important stakeholder (one, maybe two)
with who to discuss the components of the list containing the rest of the stakeholders.

See above comment on Carpathian-wide, NGOs, but representation of the focal areas was
fine.
Workshop results:

Seems to be promising, but too early to judge

To be distributed to all the project’s partners (especially the selected adaptation measures).

Ok, but we could have got more out of it i think with better preparation, discussion on
organisation of workshop and better involvement of the project team
Event:
– preparation, organisation:
 good
 Nothing to complain. Only to congratulate the organisers. (2x)
 excellent practical organisation, but SR5 leads could be more involved in the workshop
organisation and delivering in the next workshop
– venue, services:
 good, excellent
 Nothing to complain. Only to congratulate the organisers. (2x)
26
ANNEX 5: CarpathCC brochure
27
ANNEX 6: CarpathCC pre -invitation newsletter for the Egerszalók Workshop
28
ANNEX 7: CarpathCC invitation for the Egerszalók Workshop
29
ANNEX 8: CarpathCC follow-up newsletter for the Egerszalók Workshop
30
ANNEX 9: CarpathCC Egerszalók Workshop – Media coverage
31
ANNEX 10: CarpathCC Press Release – English ( 3 pages)
32
33
34
ANNEX 11: CarpathCC Press Release – Hungarian (2 pages)
35
36
ANNEX 12: CarpathCC Press Release – Slovakian (2 pages)
37
38
ANNEX 13: Stakeholder list for the Egerszalók Workshop
Name
Dudás György
Post/Position
igazgatóhelyettes
Organisation
Bükki Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság
Nationality E-mail adress
HU
[email protected]; [email protected]
Telefon
36/411-581
Adresse
3304 Eger, Sánc u. 6.
Kun Éva
SMARAGD-GHS Kft.
Gyulai Tamás
SMARAGD-GHS Kft.
HU
[email protected]
20/9510-402 (Sőregi K.)
Debnár Zuzsa
Nemzeti Környezetügyi Intézet Észak-magyarországi Kirendeltsége
HU
[email protected]
+36 46 516 600, 18 077. mellék
[email protected]
Bartókné Tassonyi Annamária
kirendeltség vezető,
Nemzeti Környezetügyi Intézet Észak-magyarországi Kirendeltsége
HU
[email protected]
+36 46 516 600, 18 169. mellék
Domonyikné Koleszár Judit
csoport vezető
Észak-magyarországi Vízügyi Igazgatóság
HU
[email protected]
(46)516-600
Kovács Péter
Tahy Ágnes helyett 2 fő BecsáknéTornay Enikő vízgazdákodási osztály
Molnár Péter
vízgyűjtőgazdálkodási osztály
Iván Krisztián
varom a valaszt, erdekli
Észak-magyarországi Vízügyi Igazgatóság
Nemzeti Környezetügyi Intézet
Nemzeti Környezetügyi Intézet
Észak-magyarországi Környezetvédelmi, Természetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság
HU
HU
HU
HU
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
(46)516-600
06-1-225-4400
Holló Sándor
Földtani és Tájvédelmi Osztályvezető
Bükki Nemzeti Park
HU
[email protected]
Ilonczai Zoltán
Ecological supervisor
Bükki Nemzeti Park
HU
[email protected]
Papp Viktor Gábor
Head of the East-Bükk Ranger Service
Bükki Nemzeti Park
HU
[email protected]
Kovács Krisztián
Erdészeti Osztályvezető
Bükki Nemzeti Park
HU
[email protected]
Sulyok József
Élővilág védelmi Osztályvezető
Bükki Nemzeti Park
HU
[email protected]
Zay Adorján
Vezérigazgató
Északerdő Zrt.
HU
[email protected];rencsine.marta @eszakerdo.hu
46 / 501 500
Garadna-völgyi Vizi Társulat
HU
[email protected]; [email protected]
20/519-2250 , 06/30/4599971
Rec, MAPASZ
ÉRV Zrt. Osztályvezető helyettes technológiai és környezetvédelmi osztály
ÉRV Zrt. Technológiai és környv. osztály, vízgazdálkodás
HU
HU
HU
[email protected]
[email protected]
48 / 514-500
48 / 514-500
MIVIZ Kft.
HU
[email protected]
06-46/519-300
Heves Megyei Vízmű Zrt.
Miskolc Turisztikai Kft.
HU
HU
[email protected]
36/413-633
[email protected], [email protected] 46/ 503-180
OMSz (CarpathClim project)
Slovakian MoE
REC CO Slovakia
Eger, tanarkepzo foiskola, klimakutato
MTA, bidiverzitas kutatp
Nemzeti Alkalmazkodási Központ/BME
Nemzeti Alkalmazkodási Központ/BME
OMSz, meteorologus
Godollo Szent I egyetem, kutato
Sopron egyetem, erdesz
Miniszterium
BROZ - Bratislavske regionalne ochranarske zdruzenie
Adresa (kancelaria BROZ): Na Riviere 19/a, 841 04 Bratislava - Karlova Ves, SR
HU
SK
SK
[email protected]
[email protected]
Zuzana Hudekova [[email protected]]
Vanczák Zoltán
Feiler József
Kiss Gabriella
Hanyu Zsuzsanna (Lippai helyett)
klímakutató
környezetvédelmi osztály, hidrogeológus
környezetvédelmi osztály, vizgazdálkodó
Horányiné Csiszár Gabriella
Szabó Tamás
Czinkné Sztán Anikó
Lakatos Mónika
Anna Kruzicova
Zuzana Hudekova
Mika Janos
Czucz Balint
Pálvölgyi Tamás
Dr. Csete Mária
Bozo Laszlo
Novaky Bela
Matyas Csaba
Dobozi Eszter
Mgr. Lubomira Vavrova, Ph.D.
Ing Marian Šturcel
Ing Slavomír Celer
Ing Peter Novák
JUDr Štefan Bieľak
Assoc. prof. Pavel Cudlin
Saskia Werner
Henk Zingstra
Schmotzer András
Ügyvezető Igazgató
Kutató – adaptáció
Kutató – égh.vált., alkalmazkodás, fenntart.
Tatra expert
námestník (vicedirector)
Štátne lesy TANAPu (State Forest of Tatra National Park), Tatranská Lomnica, Vysoké Tatry
vedúci odboru (head of nature conservation and GIS department)
Správa TANAP (Tatra National Park Administration), ŠOP SR, Tatranská Štrba
vedúci odboru výstavby a územného plánu (head of planning and master plan of Vysoke Tatry town) Mesto Vysoké Tatry
primátor (major)
Spišská Belá
Global Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Division of Ecosystem Analysis
CARPIVIA
Alterra, Team ESS-CC (Earth System Science-Climate Change), Wageningen UR
CARPIVIA
Centre for Development Innovation -Wageningen UR (CDI)
grassland expert, researcher
Bükki Nemzeti Park, Élővilágvédelmi Osztály
[email protected]
06 46/517-300
3525 Miskolc, Deák tér 1.
??
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
SK
SK
SK
SK
CZ
NL
NL
HU
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Na Sádkách 7, Ceské Budejovice 370 05
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
39
ANNEX 14: Agenda of the Egerszalók Workshop (2 pages)
40
41
ANNEX 15: Participants list of Egerszalók Workshop
Name
Éva Kun
Tamás Gyulai
Zsuzsa Debnár
Annamária Bartókné Tassonyi
Enikő Becsákné Tornay
Péter Molnár
György Dudás
Viktor Gábor Papp
Sándor Holló
Zoltán Ilonczai
Krisztián Kovács
József Feiler
Post/Position
projekt manager
projekt manager
expert
head of branch
expert
expert, River Basin Management Department
deputy director
Head of the East-Bükk Ranger Service
Head of Geological Department
Ecological supervisor
head of Forestry Department
External expert
Gabriella Kiss
Designated deputy head of department, hydro-geologist
Zsuzsanna Hanyu
officer for water management
Mária Csete PhD.
researcher, assosiciate professor
Mgr. Lubomira Vavrova, Ph.D.
Anna Kruzicova
Zuzana Hudekova
Ing Marian Šturcel
Ing Slavomír Celer
Ing Peter Novák
project manager, expert
State Counsellor
Project manager, expert
Deputy director
head of nature conservation and GIS department
Head of the Department of Construction, Investments and
Land-use Planning
Assoc. prof. Pavel Cudlin
Henk Zingstra
divison leader
Senior Advisor Water and Ecosystem Management
Organisation
SMARAGD-GHS Kft.
SMARAGD-GHS Kft.
National Institute for Environment, Regional Branch for Northern Hungary
National Institute for Environment
Bükk National Park
Bükk National Park
Bükk National Park
Bükk National Park
Bükk National Park
MAPASZ/REC
North Hungarian Regional Waterworks Ltd. Department for Technology and
Environmental Protection
North Hungarian Regional Waterworks Ltd. Department for Technology and
Environmental Protection
National Adaptation Centre MFGI
BROZ - Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable
Development
Ministry of Environment, Slovakia
REC CO Slovakia
State Forest of Tatra National Park
Tatra National Park Administration
Field of interest
sub-surface water
sub-surface water
sub-surface water
agriculture
climate change
groundwater
grassland, agriculture,
regional development,
sustainable settlements
grassland, agriculture,
westland
forestry, tourism
town and country
The City of High Tatras
planning
Global Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, land use change,
Division of Ecosystem Analysis
ecosystem services
Centre for Development Innovation -Wageningen UR (CDI)
42
ANNEX 16: Methodology of the stakeholder involvement (9 pages)
SR5 Supporting stakeholder interaction
DRAFT METHODOLOGY
1. Introduction
The CarpathCC project (Carpathian in-depth assessment of vulnerability to climate change
and ecosystem based adaptation measures-) aims to assess the vulnerability of the Carpathian
region to climate change in combination with other anthropogenic stresses. The CarpathCC is
implemented in close cooperation of the CARPIVIA (Carpathian integrated assessment of
vulnerability to climate change and ecosystem based adaptation mea sures) project which are
both part of the preparatory action "Climate of the Carpathian Basin” initiated by the
European Parliament. The CarpathCC Project will focus on the following:
 In-depth assessments of vulnerability of water, ecosystems conditions and services
and ecosystem-based production systems (sectors) to climate change impacts and
anthropogenic pressures, and the analysis of subsequent socio-economic impacts.
 In-depth assessments of the proposed concrete adaptation measures, including their
costs and benefits, in the Carpathians with a particular focus on ecosystem based
approaches.
The CarpathCC project is divided into 6 parts (so called Service Requests):
SR1- In-depth study on the key climate change threats and impacts on water resources
SR 2- In-depth study on the impacts of climate change threats on ecosystems
SR 3- In depth study of climate change impacts on ecosystem based production
SR 4- In depth study on adaptation measures
SR 5- Supporting stakeholder interaction
SR 6- Integral vulnerability assessment in focal areas
The issues for the in depth studies were identified in the CARPIVIA project. These in depth
studies are conducted in five selected focal areas being:
Tatra Mountains, including Zakopane; Rodnei & Maramureş; Târnava Marė Area; Iron Gates
National Park and foothill and Bükk National Park.
2. Structure
The combined outcomes of the CarpathCC and the CARPIVIA project will be:

A strategic agenda on climate change in the Carpathians
43


A climate information system for the Carpathians (including an overview of potential
adaptation measures)
A communication strategy on climate change in the Carpathians.
The main client for the outcomes of the two projects is the Carpathian Convention.
The objective of the two projects (CarpathCC and CARPIVIA) includes to strengthen
resilience of the society to climate change. This requires continuous communication with the
stakeholders. Hence the need for a communication strategy.
Involving stakeholders is also vitally important to ensure that proposed adaptation
measures/plans are supported by relevant government agencies and that the required finances
are allocated to implement the proposed adaptation measures. Without the support of
stakeholders there is little chance that the required means to implement measures are being
allocated.
The CARPATH CC project will follow a bottom-up approach taking into account the
information needs and its availability at regional/local level. Local/regional/national
institutions will be involved and all phases of the project implementation will be discussed
with them, fostering strong cooperation, close interaction and joint work.
Identifying all the relevant stakeholders and key players is proved to be vitally significant in
the development and refinement of policies/, measures/, strategies and the involvement of
climate aspects in sectoral development plans. Involving stakeholders is vitally important to
ensure that proposed adaptation measures/plans are being financed and implemented. Without
the support of stakeholders there is little chance that policy makers will allocate the required
means to implement measures. In addition the objectives of the projects (both CARPATHCC
and CARPIVIA) it is also very important to strengthen resilience of the society to climate
change and this also requires continuous communication with the stakeholders giving them
the opportunity to be informed and let them express their view.
3. Scope
The scope of the CarpathCC project is to formulate feasible and acceptable ecosystem based
adaptation measures. SR5 (Supporting stakeholder interaction) is a crucial pillar of the overall
project, since the adaptive measures proposed by experts of other SRs and their application
for the focal areas will be introduced and discussed.
As indicated above the success and sustainability of the project outcomes will be enhanced by
a society-oriented path. This includes analysing major stakeholder concerns to the
introduced/proposed adaptation policies and measures to be developed through active
engagement and dialogue with stakeholders. Important stakeholders involve scientist/experts
and practitioners (eg water authorities, forestry related institutions/organizations etc.) from
the relevant sectors, national and local decision makers, NGOs, representatives of media,
educational and financial sector. Identification of relevant stakeholders will be one of the
most essential preparatory activities and scope of SR5 task.
44
4. Issues to be considered:
4.1. Communication
Communication and participation are related. Communication helps to build up participation.
Without proper communication and in lack of information, participation and involvement of
stakeholders may be difficult.
4.2. Dissemination of information
Information means power and influence. Information enables people to learn more about their
environment or community and allows them to decide whether they agree and support the
proposed actions or want to be involved in a particular decision-making procedure.
Information should be timely, and should be provided in an understandable and user friendly
format.
An advanced form of dissemination is the platform for dialogue to share knowledge, diffuse
news, data and experiences among stakeholders like researchers, water services managers,
national and local institutions, non-governmental organizations, environmental and pressure
groups. See the platform developed under the CARPIVIA project.
A higher level of communication will be implemented by the planned information strategy for
the Carpathian Convention as one of the ways to increase awareness about climate change
and enhance political and societal support for precautionary measures including adaptation
and mitigation measures. The present communication plan will be incorporated to the
information strategy of the Carpathian Convention.
4.3. Public and stakeholder involvement
During stakeholder dialogue a collaborative approach should be taken. Successful stakeholder
involvement requires engaging stakeholders at an early stage when all options are open, all
needed information is provided and they still can influence the outcome. The purpose of
stakeholder meetings is that knowledge and insights are shared and that possible actions and
ideas are explored and discussed before decisions are finalized. By utilizing the knowledge,
views and ideas of a wider group, social capital is built and discussions are enriched leading
to better informed, better understood, and better supported outcomes.
4.4. Stakeholder interaction/Participation process
In this project stakeholder involvement takes place at two different levels; in each of the five
focal areas where the in depth studies take place stakeholders will be invited to be involved
and give feed-back on the results and recommendations. And at the regional level the
aggregated results of the in depth studies in the focal areas will be discussed in two regional
stakeholder meetings; one in Hungary (Bükk area) and one in Serbia.
The participation process design consists of two steps:
 First, to understand the situation including the purpose of the stakeholder interaction
process including, the expected outputs and outcomes. There is need to think over
who are the people who should be involved and what level of influence/power do they
have. i.e. conduct a stakeholder analyses.
 Secondly, the participation process needs to be planned.
45
When planning the process in details, the following should be thought through as a minimum:
– Who are your stakeholders and what are the ways of relating them?
– To what extent are they informed about the subject; what information already exists
and What information needs to be prepared and disseminated, what information
already exists and what needs to be prepared?
– What is their relation to the issue of climate change?
– What is the existing decision-making context that needs to be taken into account?
– Who will do what, and how to make the proposed measures implemented?
– What type of events (character of the workshop with awareness raising, training or
consultation component) is planned and what will be the tasks for the organizers in
details? The events and tasks need to be planned in detail, one by one.
– What are the practicalities which need to ensure that the process is running well?
– What information is available where
– Awareness and goals of actors that can be affected by climate change
– Measures already taken/considered and barriers encountered
Questions to be considered when identifying the key stakeholders:
– Who are the people concerned?
– Who have direct or indirect influence by planned activities/measures?
– In what way (interest at local, regional, state or international level; general or
professional interest)?
– Who has experience or can help regarding the issue/problem?
– Who are the key people to involve in the planning process?
– Who are the people who contribute to the problem through their actions or lack
of actions?
– Who are the people who may hinder the process? Why? How to overcome it?
– Who can help with the improvement of the plan/activity?
In addition to stakeholders of the focal areas proposed by the SR’s, the following groups
should be represented:
 Scientist/experts knowledgeable in the specific sector covered (e.g. water, forestry
etc.). they are expected to contribute identifying the impacts of climate change and
the vulnerability assessment, also to provide with information about the costs of
adaptation measures;

Decision makers (both central and local levels), who are expected to contribute to
discussion, how feasible and applicable the proposed measures are on national and
local level. It is also expected from their side to identify the gaps and needs to
implement the proposed measures;

NGOs;

Representatives of educational institutions;

Representatives of financial and economic sectors;
46

Media, dissemination.
The stakeholder workshop/event can serve as giving/disseminating information, gathering
information, consultation and promoting shared decision-making.
Finally:
6. A planned stakeholder involvement/public participation process will make
participation and communication efforts more efficient, effective, and lasting.
7. A successful communication and stakeholder involvement is an ongoing process, not
a one-time event.
8. Good collaborative participation process will lead with higher probability among
others to well informed decisions, ensure ownership over outcome of the decisionmaking, address the real problems, helps to avoid or manage conflicts, and also result
in mutual learning and good social capital.
5. Organization of two stakeholder workshops (implementing tasks under
SR5)
Two stakeholders workshops will be organized, both supporting the work mainly SR6:
Integral Vulnerability Assessments in Focal Areas. There are five focal areas identified in the
proposal:





Tatra Mountains, including Zakopane (Slovakia, Ploand)
Rodnei&Maramures (Romania)
Tarnave Mare Area (Romania)
Iron Gates National Park and foothill (Romania, Serbia)
Bükk National Park (Hungary)
Based on the geographical location Eger (Hungary) and Belgrade (Serbia) were selected as
venue for the first and second workshop, respectively. In Eger participants will come from
focal area a/ and e/. In Belgrade the representatives of relevant stakeholders from the other
three focal areas (a/, b/ and d/) will be invited.
The main aims of the stakeholder workshops are to identify the most optimal/feasible and the
most cost effective adaptation measures. [note: the ToR also indicates the need for awareness
raising. If the aim shifted to assessment of measures, the invitees are quite different. ]
For that purpose the stakeholders meeting should provide a forum for all relevant stakeholder
groups in the Carpathian region, where the preliminary results of the Carpathian project will
be introduced and discussed in order to:



Discuss a number of action scenarios in relation to the impacts of climate change,
based on key impacts and assessments of vulnerability;
Generate a number of adaptation options in relation to these scenarios;
Receiving stakeholder opinions on the CBA framework discussing about the costs
and benefits of the options along with their feasibility;
47


Contribution to identifying preferred options and adaptation pathways.
Raise awareness on impacts of climate change and potential counter-measures
The general goals of the workshops are as follows:
6. Sharing scientific information and related questions with the participants of the
workshop
7. Getting feedback about information presented by project partners and collecting
opinions about the problems in question from regional/local stakeholders;
8. Inspiring stakeholders to discuss the results achieved by the international consortium
and
contribute to assessing the feasibility of proposed adaptation
options/policies/measures; more specifically:
 Get to know the actual knowledge-horizon, experience and preferences of the
stakeholders;
 Assess info needs (in general and for info system in particular);
 Assess barriers to climate change adaptation.
The specific goal of the workshops is to discuss the potential adaptation measures
proposed by SR6 (in co-operation with other SRs) for each of the focal areas.
Proposed topics to be presented and discussed during these workshops are the followings:



Introduction of the status of the two projects (CARPIVIA and CARPATHCC) in
general and disseminate information about the achieved results including information
platform, strategic agenda and communication strategy;
Introducing to the stakeholders the first specific results of SR1, SR2, SR3 and SR4,
and asking them to share their view/information whether those can be applied for
focal areas of SR6; (To collect additional data within focal areas on e.g. costs of
management measures, market prices, and to instruct local stakeholders who will be
involved in the case studies in the focal areas on how to apply the methodology)
Presenting a subset of sector-specific measures (around 10) prepared by SR4 utilizing
the input by other SRs as water, forestry, ecosystems. The short-listed measures will
be discussed with relevant stakeholders, during which the suitability analysis will be
fine-tuned and corrected/adapted; select two or three measures for further analysis
and tailoring to the Carpathian region. The sector-specific measures at a later stage of
project implementation could be merged and an integrated assessment can be made.
The topics (sectors) to be presented at the stakeholders meeting will be proposed by other
SRs, SR1,SR2, SR3, SR4 and SR6. It is suggested to identify two sectors for each focal area
giving the room to involve stakeholders from a wider area. Partner organizations will be
asked for consultation to have proper representation of stakeholders from the focal areas.
Selection of invitees for the workshop will be made in line with the inception report. It
indicates in general that stakeholders will represent the following groups:
48







Scientist/experts knowledgeable in the specific sector covered (e.g. water, forestry
etc.) including risks and impacts of climate change, vulnerability assessments,
Decision makers (both central and local levels),
Practitioners working in the selected sector, e.g. water management companies,
agriculture/forestry/health related institutions);
NGOs;
Representatives of educational institutions;
Representatives of financial and legal institutions and sectors;
Media, dissemination.
Selection of the stakeholders will follow the guidelines described above. Before doing so,
suggestions by SRs are expected to identify 2 relevant sectors/systems, where impacts of
climate change seem to be more visible and severe. It is envisaged that the SR coordinators
identify stakeholders from the sectors mentioned above and provide with names and
addresses. Proposed people will be contacted using different channels, as post, e-mail,
website etc. Information about the workshop including topics, problems to be discussed will
be circulated and some questions will be raised.
The questions are to cover different aspects, such as affiliation, background, knowledge on
observation data, role/involvement of dealing with climate change, level of knowledge on
climate change and impacts, understanding of adaptation and vulnerability, potential
ways/tools to cope with adaptation etc. (It is envisaged that the questions might be translated
to national language with no extra cost assuming that project partners will make it.)
Based on the responses the participants for the workshop will be selected. The responses will
be analysed (considering questions, criteria prescribed in Section 3.4.) and the responses will
be serving as the base for selecting relevant stakeholders, who will be invited for the
stakeholders meeting.
The stakeholder workshops shall be organized assuming that the SRs have achieved some
progress and preliminary results at least on the impacts and potential measures/ options to
cope with adaptation, which will be presented. Two workshops will be held, the first one will
take place in Eger (Hungary) and the second one in Belgrade (Serbia). One workshop will
incorporate stakeholders from 2 (Serbia, Romania) and 3 (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia)
countries, respectively. Invited stakeholders will represent identified sectors relevant for the
selected region (might be cross border) in line with the focal areas representing. The events
are planned to have two main parts. The first half will be dedicated to plenary session,
providing with general information. The working language will be English, interpretation
might be needed. The second part will be group discussions, where the potential sectorspecific measures (list proposed by SR4 and SR6 in co-operation with other SRs) will be
discussed and fine-tuned to the real needs of the focal areas. It is envisaged that national
languages will be used in the groups, where unofficial interpretation could be done by local
project partner for international experts.
Workshop 1. Eger, scheduled on 24-25 January 2013. Local stakeholders will represent the
National Park of Tatra (Slovakia, Poland) and Bükk (Hungary). Participants will be the
representing all possible stakeholder groups relevant for the sector selected as most
problematic on for the focal area. Based on the preliminary information the main discussion
49
topics will be related to surface water and forestry.. Potential users of forestry and surface
water related sector, representatives of water authorities, forest management
institutions/authorities, local governments, officials of National parks will be among the
invitees.
Workshop 2. Belgrade, scheduled on 21-22 March 2013. Discussion topics will be related to
the problems/sectors (e.g. water management, tourism) identified for the focal areas in
Romania (Rodnei&Maramures, Tarnave Mare Area) and the transboundary region in
Romania and Serbia (Iron Gates National Park and foothill). Invitees will come from the two
countries covering the same stakeholder groups mentioned above .
During the stakeholder meetings available information will be disseminated by other SRs,
then floor will be given to local/regional stakeholders to utilize their knowledge and assist the
project partners to update/validate information. From this reason it is crucial how to select
invitees for the event, so the information to be collected from potential participants before
organizing the event will help to identify the most useful persons, who will contribute to the
work of the project team by adding local knowledge and representing different angles. Useful
contribution by local stakeholders can be expected only in that case if the preliminary project
results will have been communicated/ distributed much in advance before the meeting.
During the events direct questions need to be formulated and presented before the group
discussions. Stakeholders will be asked to provide feedback on and contribute to:

Action scenarios related to the impacts of climate change based on key impacts
and assessment of vulnerability (presented by Project partners of SRs)
 Adaptation options for the scenarios identified
 Identification of preferred options and adaptation pathways.
It is proposed to start with one plenary session for the introduction of the Carpathian project
results, then split into groups within selected sectors (with about 10 people per group) making
facilitated discussion. List of specific questions have to drafted in collaboration with the SR
coordinators with a special focus on the focal area. The discussion should be focusing on
selected sectors (max. 2), which is the most problematic/relevant for the focal area. Number
of the working groups will be depending on the countries involved and the selected sectors.
Each group will include wide range of stakeholders group to give the opportunity for
conflicting interests of the various stakeholder groups and to discuss suggested options from
different angles. The majority of the participants of the groups should represent local/regional
authorities/institutions. Decision-makers on national level might be invited only for the first
plenary session, while group discussion could be made only for regional/local stakeholders.
Proposed structure of the workshop (Plenary day and working group day):
Session 1 (plenary): information dissemination on status of implementation of other (selected)
SRs
Session 2 (plenary): national contributions by different stakeholders (central and national
governments, relevant institutions, academia)
Session 3 (working groups in parallel): facilitated group discussion by involving all relevant
stakeholders
50
Session 4 (plenary): summary/conclusions
Plenary sessions will be made in English.
Groups might be formed for sectors and countries, so national language(s) can be used.
During stakeholder dialogue a traditional consultation or a collaborative approach can be
applied.
Facilitation tips:
 Introduce yourself and get others to do likewise
 Introduce session format.
 Ensure everyone understands tasks in hand
 Steer discussion to ensure progress
 Ensure everyone has chance to speak
 Deal with any conflict
 End with conclusions and next steps
51
ANNEX 17: CarpathCC website design
52
ANNEX 18: CarpathCC ppt presentation template
53
ANNEX 19: Photos taken at the Egerszalók Workshop
54
ANNEX 20: Photos taken at the site visit in Bükk National Park
55

Evaluation of the communication tools and

Transcription

Similar documents

WaferTech, LLC

certificate

Priority research questions for the UK food system

certificate

here

506-Amacus-A5-Housing updated

Adaptation 2016 Climate change adaptation

THE saber tooth tiger is a very deadly animal. FOR example,the

RoHS, REACH and Reason - Rowan Technology Group

Project Overview - Lowry Redevelopment