IDMP CEE 2nd workshop: 4 Quarter Report by PRG

Quarterly Report No. 1

4th Quarter of 2013

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

The plan of presentation

Introduction

Assessment procedure

General observations

Snapshot detailed comments

Recommendations

Since the PRG report was distributed before the workshop, our

comments and observations will now be very short – let’s spent

this hour mostly as the beginning of discussion how to eliminate

the current problems and improve the further implementation of

the Programme

Questions to PRG? How can we contribute better to your efforts?

Assessment procedure

No permanent PRG Chair - each quarter another member of PRG

takes a Lead

Janusz Kindler agreed as a Lead for the 4th quarter of 2013

The Lead produces the first draft of the review report, which is

distributed to the other PRG three members for comments,

corrections and additional observations

After several e-mail iterations, the final text agreed by all PRG

members is produced and submitted to the Programme Manager


We are impressed by the comprehensive outcome of the

activities - in particular when we consider that the Programme

started in the course of 2013

Review is based on milestone reports (total about 500 pages), not

on deliverables, but a good stepping stone towards them

Some of the milestone reports do not agree with the activity lists

... they must be updated


Integration of national contributions is often missing – it will be

of fundamental importance in the final outputs

In the future a more concerted action of all partners is needed,

i.e. more work needs to be done jointly by all partners

Integration of IDM CEE information system in the EC-JRC

European Drought Observatory (EDO) is a good idea, but

- principles and operational details must be soon agreed with

the national data suppliers

- Flexibility EDO to address specific regional requirements


Some milestone reports are broad, but still miss the connection

with IDMP, specific for the region

Coordination across scientific content activities is unclear

The reporting quality of some milestone reports is not adequate

and should be improved

Activity lists and reports

IDMP has a smaller budget, than the EU-Framework

Programmes (FP7, Horizon2020). Anyway, the main tasks are in

the Activity lists, accepted by the National Chairs of CWP and

the participants

You can revise your Activity list, but you have to negotiate with

the Scientific Coordinator to modify it/them. It is not accepted

to change the topics of the Activity lists unilaterally

Activity reports

PRG has the documents: Activity lists and Milestone reports

only. The evaluation of the reports is based on the Activity list.

A report can be very good, very useful, but if it has to suit the

Activity list

The reports have a very substantial volume. Most probably, the

synthetizing reports could serve additional benefit for the

region, but they are quite often missing

Recommendations

Drought Risk Management: Leading Concept?

monitoring drought hazard

(forecasting hazard)

current and (forecasted) impacts (probabilistic)

potential measures/actions to reduce impacts, to

build resilience, reduce vulnerabilities and risk (stakeholder dialogue, hydrological modeling, impact modeling, exploration

risk management strategies)

Recommendations

Drought Risk Management: Leading Concept?



current (and forecasted) impacts (probabilistic)




Ongoing

drought

Future

drought

Recommendations

Drought Risk Management: embedding of DSS



current (and forecasted) impacts (probabilistic)




Recommendations

Literature research: Demonstration Projects (WP5)

- existing knowledge

(demonstration)

- identifying gaps (targeted

experiments, demonstration)

Recommendations

Stakeholders: agriculture & forestry

Other stakes (future)?

- navigation

- energy

- water resources

- health

- tourism

- ecosystem services

Recommendations Terminology

Differences

- drought

- aridity

- water scarcity

Drought types

- meteorological

- soil water

- hydrological

Use accepted Glossary (e.g. EC, WMO, UNESCO, IPCC, UN-ISDR, IAHS)

Recommendations

Drought indicators

Common suite of indicators

- awareness indicators

- operational indicators

Recommendations CEE Information System: integration in European Drought

Observatory

Check long-term risk

Recommendations

Activity design / Reporting

- Harmonization (e.g. climate information)

- Milestone Reports consistent with Activity List

- Formulate added value from existing knowledge for

IDMP CEE

- Develop common format for training courses

- Milestone Reports preferably ≤ 30 p. (excl. annexes)

- Clear requests to contributing partners (templates);

synthesize national inputs / reports

Recommendations Cooperation and Dissemination

International Cooperation:

- European Drought Centre

- EURO FRIEND-Water Low Flow and Drought

project / group

Transboundary dissemination (examples):

- EGU, various sessions, Vienna, 27 April – 1 May 2014

- FRIEND-Water 2014 Conf., Montpellier, 7-10 October 2014

- Leonardo HYPER Drought Conf., Prague, November 2014

- International Drought Conference, Valencia, 10-13 March 2015.

Recommendations

- Agricultural practices (incl. increase

WHC)

- Forest ecosystems

- Natural small water retention measures

- Drought Information System

- Decision support system

- GIS Based Communication Technology

Platform

- Remote sensing agricultural drought

monitoring

- Upgrading agricultural drought

monitoring and forecasting

- International Cooperation

- DM Plans, RBMPs ≈ EU-WFD

- Guidelines for DM Plans

- Capacity building

Concerted actions / synthesis

Government & Nonprofit

IDMP CEE 2nd workshop: 4 Quarter Report by PRG