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



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)



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)


General observations 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



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

Environment

activities report milestone

assessment report

budapest workshop

milestone reports

hungary henny

final draft report

final draft prg report

drought management plans