Barcelona 4-5th of September 2013

Transcription

1

2 Barcelona 4-5th of September 2013 Steering Committee WPn title Progress of work and Deliverable Plans WP main S&T results and potential impact WP main deviations from Annex I (DoW) and corrective actions Dr. / Dra. Name / Partner Code (Country) Position inside the project

3 Barcelona 4th of September_Progress WP activities for the last period of the project (M36-M48) (10 ):! WP progress of work and status of activities!.! WP meetings and dissemination activities.!.! WP expected activities and milestones for the next period.!. Title of presentation YYYY.MM.DD Author / Partner Code (Country) 2

4 Barcelona 4th of September_Deliverables WP deliverable plans and publications (10 ).! For each deliverable within the WP:! Responsible author;! Main inputs, document structure and contents;! Expected contributions from each partner;! Calendar;! Proposal of reviewers. For each deliverable within the WP: Expected publications. Expected articles for the wiki. Title of presentation YYYY.MM.DD Author / Partner Code (Country) 3

5 Barcelona 5th of September_Impact Meeting with Stefan WEIERS. For each WP and from M1 to M48 (15 ):! A description of the main S and T results;! A description of the potential impact and innovative aspects;! A description of the main deviations (DoW) and corrective actions. Title of presentation YYYY.MM.DD Author / Partner Code (Country) 4

6 Thank you very much. Dr. Dra. Name / Partner Code (Country) name@partner.eu Pegaso Project is founded by the European Union within FP7 ENV Integrated Coastal Zone Management Specific Programme FP7 Collaborative Projects Large scale integrating project Grant agreement nº Project coordination Dra. Françoise Breton francoise.breton@uab.cat UAB Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona / Spain

7 Pegaso Project People for Ecosystem based Governance in Assessing Sustainable development of Ocean and coast Funded by the European Union within FP7 ENV Integrated Coastal Zone Management Steering Committee Barcelona 4-6 th of September 2013 Minute Code 4-6/09/2013Pegaso/SC Date 4-6/09/2013 Type Virtual Face to face Specific Programme FP7 Collaborative Projects Large scale integrating Project Grant agreement nº: Consortium body* GA SC EUC SAP WPn Other: Meeting Coordinator Françoise Breton WP1 Management People invited / People present Françoise Breton (UAB); Gloria Salgado (UAB); Julien Le Tellier (Plan Bleu); Zelijka Skaricic (PAP RAC); Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet (VLIZ); Gonzalo Málvarez (UPO); Fátima Navas (UPO); Emilia Guisado (UPO); Denis Bailly (UBO); Pascal Raux (UBO); Francesca Santoro (IOC); Stefano Soriani (UNIVE); Fabrizia Buono (UNIVE); Manal Nader (UOB); Erdal Özhan (MEDCOAST). Stefan WEIERS European Commission DG Research & Innovation UAB: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. UPO: Universidad Pablo de Olavide. PLAN BLEU: Plan Bleu pour lʼenvironnement et le Développement en Méditerranée. IOC UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Unesco. UBO: Universite de Bretagne Occidentale. PAP RAC: Priority Action Programme/Regional Activity Centre. VLIZ: Vlaams Instituut Voor De Zee Vzw. UNIVE: Universita CaʼFoscari di Venezia. MEDCOAST: Akdeniz Kiyi Vakfi. UOB: University of Balamand. *GA: General Assembly. SC: Steering Committee. EUC: End-Users Committee. SAP: Scientific Advisory Panel. WPn: Work Package n Leadership. Project coordination Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona UAB / Spain

8 Agenda September 4 th 2013 AULA 18, Casa Convalescència - UAB CAMPUS Barcelona 09:30 10:30 Welcome. Agenda. News. (Françoise Breton) Capacity Building Plan; ICPC Workshops (Françoise Breton) 10:30 13:30 For the last period of the project M36-M48 (WP leaders): Pegaso progress of activities per WP. Pegaso expected events per WP. Pegaso deliverable plans and expected publications per WP. 13:30 15:00 Lunch. 15:00 18:00 Pegaso third virtual conference (VIC03). Final deliverables internal review process. Publications; Rules for dissemination as covered in the Pegaso Consortium Agreement and the Grant Agreement (Annex II). September 5 th 2013 AULA 01, Casa Convalescència - UAB CAMPUS Barcelona 09:30 10:00 Welcome and presentations (Françoise Breton) 10:00 13:30 Pegaso main achievements per WP (M1-M48): A description of the main S and T results; A description of the potential impact and innovative aspects; A description of the main deviations from the DoW and corrective actions. 13:30 15:00 Lunch. Final technical review procedure (Stefan WEIERS). 15:00 18:00 Polimedia videos to be produced. Promotional videos to be produced and proposal of the content: CASEs Other? Final Conference in Antalya (M48). Main objectives and expected results. People to be invited to exchange experiences from other projects (SPINCAM for ex.) Other people to be invited (Business Plan).... September 6 th 2013 Sala M0/207- Facultat de Medicina- UAB CAMPUS Bellaterra Polimedia Studio 09:30 14:00 (Afternoon needed depending on the videos) (Coming to pick you up at 09:30 to Bellaterra Station) Polimedia videos to be produced: (WP2_ICZM Process); WP3; (WP4.1 Indicators); WP4.4 Participatory Methods; WP4.5 EA; WP5.2 IRA Other issued to be discussed (meeting room available all day): IRA meeting in September, D6.2/4.6, D2.4, Atlas 14:00 Lunch 2

9

10

11 Pegaso Project People for Ecosystem based Governance in Assessing Sustainable development of Ocean and coast Funded by the European Union within FP7 ENV Integrated Coastal Zone Management Steering Committee Barcelona 4-6 th of September 2013 Minute Code 4-6/09/2013Pegaso/SC Date 4-6/09/2013 Type Virtual Face to face Specific Programme FP7 Collaborative Projects Large scale integrating Project Grant agreement nº: Consortium body* GA SC EUC SAP WPn Other: Meeting Coordinator Françoise Breton WP1 Management People invited / People present Françoise Breton (UAB) ; Gloria Salgado (UAB) ; Julien Le Tellier (Plan Bleu) ; Zelijka Skaricic (PAP RAC) ; Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet (VLIZ) ; Gonzalo Málvarez (UPO) ; Fátima Navas (UPO) ; Emilia Guisado (UPO) ; Denis Bailly (UBO) ; Pascal Raux (UBO) ; Francesca Santoro (IOC) ; Stefano Soriani (UNIVE) ; Fabrizia Buono (UNIVE) ; Manal Nader (UOB) ; Erdal Özhan (MEDCOAST). Stefan WEIERS European Commission DG Research & Innovation UAB: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. UPO: Universidad Pablo de Olavide. PLAN BLEU: Plan Bleu pour lʼenvironnement et le Développement en Méditerranée. IOC UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Unesco. UBO: Universite de Bretagne Occidentale. PAP RAC: Priority Action Programme/Regional Activity Centre. VLIZ: Vlaams Instituut Voor De Zee Vzw. UNIVE: Universita CaʼFoscari di Venezia. MEDCOAST: Akdeniz Kiyi Vakfi. UOB: University of Balamand. *GA: General Assembly. SC: Steering Committee. EUC: End-Users Committee. SAP: Scientific Advisory Panel. WPn: Work Package n Leadership. Project coordination Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona UAB / Spain

12 Agenda 1 st session with Stefan WEIERS, European Commission, DG Research & Innovation September 4 th 2013 AULA 01, Casa Convalescència - UAB CAMPUS Barcelona 09:30 10:00 Welcome and presentations (Françoise Breton) 10:00 12:00 Pegaso main achievements (WP leaders) WP2-WP6 from M1 to M48: A description of the main S and T results; A description of the potential impact and innovative aspects; A description of the main deviations from the DoW and corrective actions; Main expected scientific publications per WP. 12:00 13:30 EC feedback (Stefan Weiers) Feedback from scientific assessment, discussion of possible improvements for final period; Discussion of policy dimension and key messages to policy makers based on project outcome; Explore solutions how to ensure sustainability of the network and the governance platform beyond the projects' end in early 2014; Final technical review procedure. 13:30 15:00 Lunch. 15:00 18:00 WP6 ICPC workshops (Françoise Breton) WP7 Dissemination (Erdal Ozhan) MEDCOAST 2013 (Pegaso session); Final Conference in Antalya (M48): Main objectives and expected results. People to be invited to exchange experiences from other projects (SPINCAM for ex.) Other people to be invited (Business Plan). Polimedia videos to be produced; Promotional videos to be produced and proposal of the content: CASEs (Other?) After hour sessions WP2-3-4 BBN workshops IRA Governance 2

13 September 4 th 2013 AULA 01, Casa Convalescència - UAB CAMPUS Barcelona Pegaso main achievements (WP leaders) and the EC feedback (Stefan Weiers) During the 1st session of the SC meeting, the SC members have presented the most innovative aspects of each WP to the European Commission Project Officer. This was followed by Stefan Weiersʼ suggestions for improvement during the last months of the project. In his first intervention, Stefan Weiers referred to Pegaso as a project with several unique elements, very interesting for the EU Community. The WP2 leader Zelijka Skaricic, has presented the work done within the Shared ICZM Governance Platform for the Med & BS, being the most innovative aspects the following: The Pegaso platform is innovative because it is directly supporting the ICZM Protocol and its Action Plan, a unique regional legal document in the world; It is a part of the regular UNEP/MAP Programme of Work (PoW) and a revival of the ICZM in the Black Sea; It is a well-established governance mechanism (some 500 people) based on nested, multilevel governance, which has been very active and cooperative, a real bridge; The work done at the local level within the CASEs has also been very important; Although there was a need for lots of technical support, it has been working really well thanks to a user-friendly interface; The face-to-face events have been also very important, i.e. the BBN exercise in the last General Meeting in Rabat; The Pegaso platform has been externalized by including the National Focal Points (NFPs) and the sharing results with other ICZM-related projects (UNEP/GEF and EU funded). Therefore, the networking part has been very important; The contracting parties of the Barcelona Convention have included Pegaso in the Conference of the Parties (COP) decisions (on Maritime Spatial Planning and the Reporting system of the Barcelona Convention). Talking about the main results, the WP2 leader has given emphasis to: The Stock-take, science, legal and institutional; The conceptual framework for IZCM, which should clarify the role of the IZCM, including other many approaches like Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP); The IZCM process that has been designed in a modern way although this was not expected in the Description of Work (DoW) and in synergy with the Med Partnership when designing and testing; The ICZM guidelines, which will summarize the Pegaso experience and compared with other experiences; TheBusiness Plan. Finally, within the WP2, the main deviations and corrective actions have been: Slight delays in the progress of work, due mainly to the implication of the NFPs; Deliberate modifications in the time schedule with the aim of rationalisation or to improve the quality of the products, but with no consequences for the project and therefore, no need for specific corrective actions. In general, the work done is broader that originally planned in the DoW. The WP3 leader Gonzalo Málvarez, has presented the work done within the Pegaso SDI, being the most innovative aspects the following: The Pegaso SDI is an online system built to support decision-makers, providing resources for the people taking better decisions locally; The Pegaso atlas has been conceived to integrate the results of the project in a very useful way, with maps that make sense to the decision makers. 3

14 The Pegaso SDI uses the available information directly from the source in a way that the user is capable to visualize the data. Therefore the WP4 works directly with the results validated later on by the CASEs. The main Pegaso results are available in the Pegaso Wiki and the Atlas on the Pegaso web portal. More in detail, for the task 3.1: Assessment on the data availability and data needs for the development of the Pegaso Spatial Data Infrastructure, the main achievements have been: Analysis of the partnerʼs feedback about data availability; Analysis on the data availability from other European projects; Elaboration and distribution of the final deliverable D.3.1 presented in 2 nd General Meeting in Romania. And for the task 3.2: Implementation of the Spatial Data Infrastructure: The definition of common rules and the assessment on the spatial information required for building the Pegaso SDI; The development of a set of prototypes and the final Pegaso SDI (central geonode) implementation and maintenance; The creation of the Metadata Catalogue, downloading service and uploading service, standard services and OGC and building the service catalogue (maps, layers and services); Connecting services from important providers: VLIZ, CMA, IFREMER, EEA, NASA; Development of a viewer with a wide set of functionalities; Preparation of the training material (Guidelines for building the Pegaso SDI) and organization of a moodle platform and a hands-on training session in Oostende (22-25 th of October 2012) with more than 20 trainees; The development of guidelines for the geonodes construction; The harmonization of the data and metadata (resolution, metadata, fields, INSPIRE); The connection of the partnerʼs geonodes with the central geonode; Improvements of the data catalogue (tree structure) and new functionalities; The compilation and the inclusion of the results from Pegaso (indicators, scenarios, LEAC) and outputs from the tools into the SDI; Continually development of the SDI and improvement of the viewer; The first prototype of the Atlas for Pegaso was presented in the 3 rd General Meeting in Rabat. In the frame of the WP3, there have been also successive prototypes of the Pegaso Intranet and the web portal (tasks 3.3. and 3.4) together with guidelines on how to use them and the design of the Pegaso corporative image. A face-to face training on the intranet use, utilities and management was imparted in Romania in July 2011 after the implementation of a set of management and communication tools; forum and post it areas, documents repository and deliverables area. More than 155 credentials have been created during the life of the project and two virtual meetings have been successfully organized. Finally, within the WP3, the main deviations and corrective actions have been: A conflict between WP3 and WP4 work plans was detected related to the provision of indicators results to be included in the SDI; Need of capacity building in the SDI development due the lack of experience of most of the partners; Highly dependency on the data availability and partners capacity skills to create the Pegaso Catalogue and spatial products with a risk of delay in the SDI products; Highly dependency on the data availability to build indicators; Need of contribution of the partners in feeding the web collaborative portal. The WP4 review has started with Pascal Raux presenting the work done in the frame of the WP4.2 LEAC and WP4.3 Scenario on behalf of the UNOTT team. For the task 4.2 LEAC the main S&T results have been: The development of analytical methods for processing and integrating a range of different remotely sensed data sources for land cover stock and change, and biodiversity monitoring data into a consistent biophysical accounting system at regional scales. 4

15 The development of consistent mapping products that extend methods developed for the EU to the Southern Mediterranean and Black Sea areas. The most innovative aspects have been: The creation of an accounting platform to support decision-making and the evaluation of monitoring data across different spatial and temporal scales. The design of accounts with particular reference to the needs of ICZM and the implementation of the Ecosystem Approach. And the main deviations from the DoW and corrective actions have been: Land accounts could not be generated from the available land cover products (due to semantic and temporal incompatibility) and therefore new Pegaso Land cover product had to be developed. Because of difficulty to apply the LEAC methodology for marine environment, the results are being delayed by UAB. Hence the marine has not yet been included in the accounts. For the task 4.3 Scenario the main S&T results have been: Review of existing scenario materials for the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins and an evaluation of their potential to contribute to ICZM and wider regional assessments. Recommendations on the roles and different uses of scenario methods in ICZM, and their relationship to other visioning methods used to support coastal zone management. The development of scenario tools based on Bayesian methods and their use in fostering participation in the context of ICZM. And the most innovative aspects have been: Sharing of good practice in the application of scenario products and processes in decision making related to ICZM issues. Development of scenario products consistent with the ICZM indicators and accounting methods developed within Pegaso. Pascal Raux has continued with the WP4 tools review, presenting the main S&T results and the main innovative aspects for the task 4.5 Economic Assessment and the task 4.6 Integration. For the task 4.5 Economic Assessment, the main S and T results have been: Following the stock-take of economic assessment methods and frameworks, the analysis of methods was made in regards to Pegaso constraints and context. The cost based approach for assessing the ecosystem degradation costs was designed and implemented over the Bouches du Rhône CASE and it is still on going. Beyond of the pure economic assessment in terms of valuation, a wider assessment framework has been designed and proposed where different tools can be implemented in order to perform the economic assessment of socio-ecosystems according to a chain of actions. Entitled the Environmental Territorial Diagnosis, the framework will act as a Regional Information System in support to ICZM. Factsheets. A Regional Information System in support to ICZM. Possible outcomes: multi- criteria analysis (MCA) or cost- effectiveness analysis (CEA) to test potential effects of new management scheme implementation 5

16 Under the test and online implementation in the BdR CASE in a dynamic way (feedback and analysis of stakeholders choices). For the task 4.5 Economic Assessment, the potential impacts and innovative aspects have been: An approach in layers and sub-layers allowing a step-by-step implementation. An attempt in integrating tools. The cost-based approach offers various practical solutions: The analysis is based on degradation thematics as they appear in current policies or eventually the public debates (reducing the scope); It is possible to identify the legal measures or potentially the citizen initiatives which are intended to respond to these degradation thematics (which may be used as a proxy for the reference state); The cost of these measures or initiatives may be estimated based on data, which corresponds to observable behaviours (investments, etc.); The residual impacts may be described within a multicriteria assessment framework, including non-monetary and qualitative indicators. And finally, the most important deviations from the DoW and corrective actions have been: From pure green accounting based on green I/O tables, completely out of the scope of the CASEs and the RA, moved to ecosystem degradation costs. Difficulties in articulating directly with LEAC (interface?). For the task 4.6 Integration, the main S and T results have been: Implementation of 2 envisioning workshops (Med and BS) to test the proposal of integration scheme; The Mediterranean workshop took place in Arles in November It started with an introduction about what could be a Desirable future against a Business As Usual future. The participants then analysed various environmental and governance issues of interest for the management of the Mediterranean coasts. Participants to the Black Sea workshop (December 2012) were invited to review: (1) the need for ICZM and way forward in the Black Sea; and, (2) weaknesses and opportunities to develop and disseminate some of the tools being developed in Pegaso. Decision to develop a web platform with tools and complete illustration based on the CASEs. Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet has presented the work done within WP4.1 Indicators on behalf of the task leader, Francesca Santoro. Ann-Katrien has referred to four main aspects when summarizing the work done within the task 4.1Indicators: 6

17 The Scope, which has been to bring along previous experiences (ensuring to do a good inventory). The Approach, defined in a context of cause-effect, linked to ICZM policy objectives and in a wide policy context, making sure that those partners outside the protocol context could use the results. Therefore, for each of the indicators, there is a description and a link to the protocol and other relevant policies. The Application in the field, starting with a methodological approach, methodological factsheets and the work within the CASEs to apply them and to provide feedback on the methodology. The Scale, regional and local: The TDV CASE (Wetland Observatory) giving a good idea of how far we can go with the regional analysis; The Greek CASE (Cyclades) having developed a big amount of indicators; The Pegaso innovative aspect, coverage of the regional sea. The Pegaso impact would then be: The definition of a set of indicators that can be used for reporting (possibility of ʻmeasuringʼ if a certain policy objective has been reached); Methodological approach defined; Other indicators can be added; Adaptability to different contexts (both EU and non EU); Adaptability to other policy objectives and other policy documents in the context of coastal and marine planning and management; TheIssue of scale. Finalizing the WP4 review, Stefano Soriani has presented the main achievements within the WP4.4 Participation. In order to ensure good governance, provide information on ICZM and mitigate conflicts, public participation is essential. The guidelines Participatory methods for ICZM implementation aimed to acquaint CASEs with participation theory and to provide support in the development of participatory strategy. For each phase of the ICZM process specific methods were selected based on the following criteria: Applicability: the methods proposed were considered easy to be applied, were already tested and did not require extensive training. Diversity: at least 3 methods were presented in each ICZM phase (Fig.1) in order to offer a freedom of choice according to the needs and resources of the CASEs. Specificity: each proposed methods described a single and concrete intervention with examples from previous implementation. I N T E G R A T I O N Establishment Analysis and futures Setting the vision Designing the futures Realising the vision F E E D B A C K An event organized by UNIVE with trainers from PAP/RAC and Plan Bleu took place in the island of San Servolo (Venice-Italy) from the 31 st of October to the 3 rd of November The training was targeted to the Pegaso CASEs that have expressed their interest and needed in training on participatory tools and more specifically CASEs team members that were responsible for the realization of participatory approaches within their CASE. 11 participants from 6 Cases attended the course in Venice. The participatory methods for ICZM implementation guidelines have been published as a Wiki article on the website in order to enhance dissemination of Pegaso results. 7

18 The wiki provides also examples of participatory practices carried out in the CASEs. The WP5.1 leader Stefano Soriani has continued with the review of the main achievements of the Pegaso project, presenting the sequence of the work done by the WP5.1 CASEs: Analysis and report of the CASEs characteristics including description of the area, main issues, conflicts and links with the ICZM protocol; Organization of the first CASES Workshop (6-8 th of October 2010, Alexandria, Egypt); Submission and collection of Input to D5.1A (September 2011) including relevant information regarding the evaluation of the CASEs after the first working period. In particular: a) main coastal issues, b) objectives, c) end products, d) tools foreseen to be developed and used and f) training needs are described for each CASE; Submission and collection of the Progress Report Input to D5.1A (April- May 2012) including Coastal issues relevance, CASE activity /relevance for ICZM process, Tools, Stakeholder involvement, Problems encountered and Lessons learned; Organization of the Second CASEs meeting (2-3 rd of July 2012 in Venice) Submission and collection of the I.D5.1 phase 2: Bridge the gap between science and decisions makers participatory strategies in the CASEs. Contribution to the Integrated Regional Assessment (IRA) by calculating the indicators. Stefano Soriani has also presented briefly the main achievements for each CASE (link to PPT presentation) and he has finalised his presentation with the main impacts and innovative aspects: Better understanding of coastal areas dynamics. Integration of different knowledge (integration of several scientific tools). Dissemination of ICZM principles and tools to sustain ICZM processes within CASEs; Central role of stakeholderʼs involvement; Contribution to the Governance Platform (sharing of knowledge, information, lesson learned among the community of ICZM experts, practitioners and decision-makers). Communication and dissemination. To ensure visibility and long-term effectiveness of Pegaso results and efforts. And finally, the main issues/problems faced in WP5.1 could be summarised as follow: The different views between the CASEs and the WP4 task leaders regarding the relationship between tools and CASEs, being the main corrective actions the linking of the CASEs with the ICZM process. How to transfer the different methodological approaches (different expertise and data availability) between CASEs, being the main corrective actions the establishing of tool-case links. The WP5 presentation has continued with Stefano Soriani presenting the WP5.2 on behalf of Francesca Santoro. The Integrated Regional Assessment is being built on the main figures of the Pegaso project. The CASEs are now in the process of providing their results. The work is still in progress and therefore, it is not possible to go into the details. The Pegaso IRA is designed to address the complexity of multidimensional and multi-scale issues related to the coastal and marine environment of the Mediterranean and the Black seas with the specific objectives to: Build an integrated and multidisciplinary approach based on best available information and on promoting dialogues and debates among relevant actors through the shared ICZM governance platform; Gain a better understanding of how human activities put pressure on and impact ecosystems; Develop responses and trade-offs between policy options across scales and issues. 8

19 The Pegaso IRA is being built on the Pegaso added values: Governance platform; Multi-scale approach (regional, national, local); Integrated tools approach. The document will illustrate: What is the status of the Mediterranean and Black Sea (focus on two important policy issues: balanced urban development and preservation of natural capital); What are the drivers; What are the main threats; What are the solutions (policies, management approaches); Trade-offs between those options; Conclusions and recommendations for ICZM implementation. And the main potential impact would be: Develop common guidelines, methodologies, and references for integrated assessment of the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins; Pave the way for an integrated approach land-sea (possible support for proposed directive Integrated Coastal Management and Marine Spatial Planning); Pave the way for ICZM implementation in the Black Sea; Represent a starting point of collaboration between scientists, practitioners, and policy-makers (transdisciplinary approach). The WP6 leader Manal Nader has finalised the 1 st session of the meeting presenting the work done within the WP6 Capacity Building. The main achievements within this WP have been summarized by Manal as follows: Capacity Building Plan developed; Document listing potential funding institutions developed and circulated; Pre/post evaluation document developed and tested; Two virtual conferences (VICs) were held to evaluate the capacity building and training needs of partners and beyond; Capacity building and training targeted partners with CASES 3 training exercises have been organized and evaluated by the participants: Participation SDI MedOpen This would be the list of the most innovative aspects and the potential impact: Networking strengthened between partners and stakeholders and fostering exchange of information; Strengthening North-South collaboration; Further dissemination of ICZM principles and tools (Indicators, Scenarios, LEAC, SDI, BBN ); Better understanding of status and future needs for capacity building in ICZM; Better understanding of the requirements for the proper implementation of the ICZM protocol. And finally this would be the most important deviations and corrective actions: Capacity Building Plan developed but challenges encountered in implementation; Coordination of large number of partners with different needs; Dependency on the outputs of other work packages to hold capacity building and training activities; Responding to requests by partners for training and capacity building; Encouraging partners to submit requests for capacity building and training; Encouraging partners and stakeholders to participate in trainings and workshops offered by different institutions around the Med. 9

20 Following the presentation of the Pegaso main achievements and potential impact, Stefan Weiers from the EC has given his feedback on the Pegaso progress of work. The technical report for the second period, which has just been approved, gives a very good impression on the S&T side. The objectives have been completed and in general, both the technical report and the deliverables are of good quality. The policy side has been a strong Pegaso achievement, together with the networking and the feeding of the platform with life. Real work has been done within the Pegaso platform. His main recommendation for the final stage of the project is to bring out more tangible results from the scientific point of view, Pegaso being a scientific project. There is a lot of substance for scientific results that needs to be published. On this specific aspect, he highly recommends that the consortium appoints somebody (not necessarily the coordinator) to coordinate the publication policy. It is equally important to identify the topics to publish about, the authors and the main contributions. He also recommends publishing scientifically in open source repositories, although Pegaso is not having a special clause on this. Going in more detail through more specific aspects, Stefan Weiers refers to the land use and change of land cover as unique data and that needs to be highlighted. Also the technical functionality of the data platform (the SDI) is quite unique although he recommends that for the users it would be useful to have analytical tools. Gonzalo Málvarez will answer later on to this comment, referring to the Pegaso atlas as a user-friendly interface, an online tool that will allow the users to exploit the infrastructure. The indicators will be projected through maps and this is may be a potential publication. For the Pegaso indicators, he recommends to discus about the strategy on how to develop composite indicators. It is important to find a strategy, either to prioritize or to combine them, but in order to arise acceptance between policy makers, the simplicity is very important. The project is on the way to simplify, but it is needed to further go away with that. This will be answered later on by Ann-Katrien referring to the Pegaso IRA and the 15 Pegaso indicators. Also referring to the CIM as a tool condensing parameters, LEAC as a tool combining indicators at the regional sea level and finally to the relevancy of the Cause-Effect and the feedback from the CASEs to illustrate/demonstrate the indicators at local level and how we can combine them. Stefan Weiers suggests then to document further the process of selection and the data sources. Stefan Weiers has referred to the BBN as a very promising and intelligent solution that can be used for scenario building and for making policy recommendations and he raises the question if this tool could be transferred to other applications. Stefan Weiers shows to be hesitant to do a final EC review since there are other priorities. There is the option to have a remote review with one or two experts appointed to read the reports and deliverables. Only in the case of a big problem, there is a face-to-face meeting. If everything stands like now, he predicts that he will do it on his own. Discussing about the business plan, he refers to it as an important document to open up future avenues. From the H2020 point of view, the possibility to fund a project similar to Pegaso is not possible in the following years. But it is important to maintain the platform alive and therefore looking into other funding sources: European Structure and Investment funds, territorial collaboration cross border initiatives like Intereg and traditional marine research. Although it will be difficult to maintain the group as a whole. Stefan Weiers proposes to convene a one-day workshop next December 2013 with other coastal projects, with 3-4 representatives of each project, to integrate their work (CASE studies in lagoons for ex) and demonstrate that we are an open platform. Time for questions coming from the WP leaders, Gonzalo Málvarez starts the discussion asking for some EC support for the scientific publications, since most editors in Scientific Journals are reluctant to publish deliverables from projects. 10

21 Stefan Weiers replies that there is no possibility to intervene and he suggests appointing for a coordinator within the consortium with lots of experience on publications. The ideal solution would be to have a Pegaso special issue on making the bridge science-decision making. Denis Bailly comments that to maintain a group dealing with the publications after the project is very complicated and suggests going for a key article (visible) easier to go through and disseminate the basic material through the web site. He points out as another difficulty the fact, that if we publish in open access, we need to pay for the journal and that there are not so many open access journals dealing with ICZM. Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet comments that there are some editors (i.e Elsevier) that allow authors to disseminate their own articles if they declare that it will be used for personal purposes. Pegaso WP7 Dissemination (Erdal Özhan) Erdal Özhan has briefly presented the structure of the Pegaso sessions in the upcoming Medcoast Conference: GLOBAL CONGRESS on ICM: Lessons Learned to Address New Challanges EMECS 10 MEDCOAST 2013 Joint Conference 30 October 03 November 2013, Marmaris, Turkey He proposes to organize two specific Pegaso sessions on the afternoon of the 1 st November (Friday). For the Pegaso specific session 1: The Pegaso Project: Supporting ICZM in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins Francoise Breton, Željka Škaričić A Set of Indicators for ICZM Francesca Santoro, Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet, Jean-Pierre Giraud, Antoine Lafitte, Julian Barbière Participatory Experiences in Pegaso Project Stefano Soriani, Fabrizia Buono, Andrea Bordin, Marco Tonino, Monica Camuffo Application of ICZM Toolʼs: Experience from the French PEGASO Study Site Anis Guelmami, Lisa Ernoul, Eric Le Gentil For the Pegaso special session 2: Pegaso Case Studies and ICZM Implementation Stefano Soriani, Marco Tonino, Fabrizia Buono, Andrea Bordin, Monica Camuffo Environmental Assessment Tools in the Pegaso Case - Sevastopol Bay Sergey Konovalov, Volodymyr Vladymyrov, Vyacheslav Dolotov, Olexandra Sergeyeva, Yuri Goryachkin, Olga Moiseenko, Sergey Alyomov, Natalia Orekhova and Liubov Zharova Implementing Local Policies for Case Study Sulina Iuliana Nichersu, Iulian Nichersu, Marian Mierla, Eugenia Marin, Cristian Trifanov Management Issues of Köyceğiz-Dalyan SPA (Turkey) Erdal Özhan, Ulaş Avşar, Nesrin Tüfekçi, Serdar Özuslu, Sinem Önder, Nurdan Kan Coastal Erosion and Vulnerability Assessment in the Al Hoceima Bay, Morocco Maria Snoussi, Abdou Khouakhi, Latifa Flayou, Hocein Bazaïri, Nadia Mhammdi Other papers from other Pegaso partners: Participation, Governance Platforms and Stakeholder Dialogue Julien Le Tellier, Antoine Lafitte Coastal Spatial Data Infrastructures: So Far So Good? Gonzalo Malvárez, Emilia G. Pintado, Fátima Navas, Alessandro Giordano Seascape Metrics For The Mediterranean Sea: A Case Study Megan S. Nowell, Luca Salvati and Françoise Breton Data Sharing INSPIRED by Pegaso SDI Georgian CASES Mamuka Gvilava, Tamar Bakuradze, Amiran Gigineishvili, Karin Allenbach, Emilia Guisado, César Martínez, Gonzalo Malvárez Monitoring of Boat Navigation in the Dalyan Channel Nesrin Tüfekçi, Ulaş Avşar, Erdal Özhan 11

22 A discussion starts then on the main objectives of the Pegaso last conference to be celebrated on the th of January 2014 in Antalya, Turkey. Denis Bailly starts the discussion pointing out that we should try to organize an open meeting for everybody interested instead of another Pegaso General Meeting that would not make much sense at the end of the project. The continuity of the Pegaso actions should be presented there so that we can work in the future prospects, being the business plan the bone of the meeting. Another option could be to organize a networking meeting with other projects dealing with a similar topic (developing science for policy). There should be then both a political and a scientific agenda: funding agencies, topics for the future and networking in an event to generate new projects. The discussion of the main objectives of the Pegaso last conference and a more detailed agenda will continue the following day. Erdal Ozhan continues with the WP7 review, presenting a proposal for the content of the potential videos to be produced by the CASEs if there are funds available: An overview of the coastal issues and the challenges. Objectives of the Pegaso CASE and achievements. Probable impacts of the Pegaso CASE work on local population and local authorities (interviews with local authorities and users could be nice) Each CASE could emphasize different things. A 10 min video should be enough. For the polimedia video, this would be the list of the polimedia to be produced on Friday 6 th of September in the UAB: The ICZM Process - Roadmap Towards Coastal Sustainability Seascape ecology: Spatial metrics as a decision-support tool Participation in Pegaso The Pegaso platform. Supporting ICZM in the mediterranean and black sea basins And the list of the polimedia videos to be produced in the following months: 2 nd round on Indicators 2 nd round on LEAC 1 st on Scenario 2 nd round on EA 1 st on IRA 2 nd round on the SDI Denis Bailly also suggests producing a video on how to use the toolbox picture. 12

23 Agenda 2nd session Progress of work and next steps (WP leaders) September 5 th 2013 AULA 18, Casa Convalescència - UAB CAMPUS Barcelona 09:30 10:00 Welcome. Agenda. (Françoise Breton) 10:00 13:30 Pegaso progress of work (WP leaders) For the last period of the project M36-M48: Pegaso progress of activities per WP. Pegaso expected events per WP. Pegaso deliverable plans and expected publications per WP. 13:30 15:00 Lunch. 15:00 18:00 Pegaso third virtual conference (VIC03). Final deliverables internal review process. Publications; Rules for dissemination as covered in the Pegaso Consortium Agreement and the Grant Agreement (Annex II). After hour sessions WP2-3-4 BBN workshops IRA Governance During the second day of the SC meeting, the WP leaders have revised the progress of work and the next steps, mainly the Pegaso deliverable plans and the Agenda for the Pegaso final Conference. The meeting starts with a discussion on the Final Conference main objectives, which will end up in a proposal of agenda. Erdal Ozhan, in the same line raised by Denis Bailly the previous day, starts with the discussion pointing out that the Pegaso final meeting should be announce as a Final Conference open to other people and as a forum for discussing the future challenges. Francesca Santoro comments that there should be room for the lessons learned and therefore we could start with a session on this point followed by the Pegaso continuity. Françoise Breton suggests to try to link what we have done with UNEP MAP, since by then, we will already have the feedback from the COP meeting (towards an ICZM Med and BS platform adopted by the COP?). At this point of the discussion, the SC members focus on the main inputs to put in (topic on science and policy) and the expected audience (science inviting policy side + CASEs with their stakeholders + other projects working in ICZM). Francesca Santoro suggests trying to link with other expert groups dealing with those aspects missing in the Pegaso expertise (H2020 Pegaso expertise gaps) and strategically identify the topics and the groups to invite. Gonzalo Malvarez points out that the contribution from the CASEs needs to be also very important and with a well-focused programme to present. We should try to structure very well their participation in a way that the indicators and the tools are explained from The CASEs experience; The CASEs as examples of every tool; Start with the Pegaso Regional level and go for the CASEs local level. Going more into the content, Zelijka Skaricic proposes a title for the conference Science and Policy for ICZM and two separate sessions: 1) to discuss first ourselves about what it has been done and the impact of this 13

24 work ( Impacts and lessons learned) + aspects to be improved and 2) make the bridge science-decision making by identifying good examples to show (Pegaso added value in an interactive way)+ projects for the future. Zelijka also suggests that, since the Pegaso continuity is more policy than science driven, we should propose a list of people to invite that may be interested in funding the platform. For the PAP RAC, the plan to continue working is the following: That the UNEP MAP agrees to invest in the Platform (next COP decision). If this is not approved, we will need a formal approval from the parties in a process that may take years. Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet also suggests to invite people from the S-E Pacific (Chile, Colombia, Panamá, Peru) + somebody from the DG Research, Marine and Coastal (waddah.saab@ec.europa.eu). Julien Le Tellier suggests for the final conference: inviting World Bank Task Team Leaders (TTL) of projects (funded by GEF) focusing on ICZM in South and East Med countries (WB-MENA region, Turkey, etc.). Plan Bleu could facilitate contact, in links with Center for Integration in the Mediterranean (CMI, Villa Valmer, Marseilles). Plan Bleu could probably cover expenses for travel and accommodation for members (2) of the end user committee to attend to the Final Conf (tbc). The Pegaso main contribution has been to have worked at both scales. Therefore, this could be a 1 st draft of the agenda for the final conference: Science and Policy for ICZM 1 st day (Back to back) + (Local level) Discussing internally what it has been done and the impact of this work Impacts and lessons learned + aspects to be improved Presenting Pegaso in an interactive way (from regional to local) The CASEs feedback (local level) CASEs present their best on how to answer the questions on governance 2 nd day (Regional level) + (Future) Presenting the Pegaso proposal of Regional Governance Platform (NGO networks + Science networks (CIESM)) Networking + Discussion with other people leading similar platforms on science-policy (HELCOM South Pacific) Funding opportunities - Future opportunities - Other projects - Funding agencies H2020; GEF; DG MARE; DG DEFLO; EEA; UNEM MAP; INTEREG; Private foundations During the following session, Françoise Breton has presented the status of the upcoming ICPC workshops: The UAB, UOB and Medcoast will organize the BBN workshops in Lebanon and Turkey as expected. The same for the training workshops on Indicators and LEAC to be organized in Algeria and Georgia and the training workshop on aquaculture to be organized in the Greek islands (Ifremer). Given the political situation in Egypt, the El Cairo workshop has been postponed until next December. During the last session of the Steering Committee, the WP leaders have reviewed the progress of work and the deliverable plans for each WP. 14

25 Starting with the WP1, Gloria Salgado has presented the next steps for the WP1: The WP1 will be preparing two main deliverables in the following months: The D1.5 Guidelines and procedures for management of FP7 Projects. The last technical report covering the last period of the project M37-M48 + a final report with the following parts: Publishable summary report; Description of main S & T results/foregrounds; Potential impact and main dissemination activities and exploitation of the results; use and dissemination of foreground. Most of the information to start working with this deliverable is already available and therefore the management team will start to prepare this report immediately after the SC, following the same procedure used for the previous two reports. No changes are foreseen, since the PO during the 1st day of the meeting specified that the submitted technical reports are of good quality. For the financial part, no more internal reports are foreseen, which means that we will go directly for the final report (M37-M48) immediately after the Final Conference, once the project is closed. The procedure to follow will be the same one used until now and every six months. For those partners needing to prepare a certificate of the financial statement (CFC) (total requested EU contribution > ), the UAB will send a request to start with the audits two months minimum before the end of the project, since the first and the second Form C can already be audited and the Adjustment Form Cs can also be submitted to the EC before the end of the project. For the WP2 to WP6, the following tables summarize the information presented by the WP leaders: WP2 (Zelijka Skaricic) WP2 progress of work and status of activities: Platform well-established, working as usual; lot of contacts related to deliverables and with end-users; Live platform demonstration in Rabat with the BBN exercise; All deliverables submitted in final version or as final drafts to be completed by the end of the year: some delays with regard to the work plan mainly due to the consultations with PAP NFPs; Externalisation of the platform by including NFPs and sharing results with other ICZM-related projects (UNEP/GEF and EU funded); Inclusion of Pegaso in two decisions (on MSP and Reporting) to be submitted to COP18. WP2 meetings and dissemination activities: Intense dissemination activity confirming the usefulness of the project and its results; ECP meetings Pegaso part of UNEP/MAP PoW; ENPI CBC project MARE NOSTRUM kick-off (Haifa, March 2013) short presentation of the project; DG MARE expert meeting on Information and Knowledge (Athens, April 2013) detailed presentation of the Platform including SDI; MAP NFPs meeting (Athens, April 2013) information on the links with the EcAp process; Joint EU MSP-ICZM Expert Group (Brussels, June 2013) information about the project; Two articles submitted to the MEDCOAST Conference; Pegaso included in the PAP/RAC Progress Report for ; D2.1B shared with PAP NFPs for comments. WP2 expected activities and milestones for the last period: Finalisation of deliverables; Preparation for and participation to the project final conference; Presentation/discussion of COP decisions at the MAP NFPs meeting (Athens, September 2013) and COP18 (Istanbul, December 2013); Presentation of the project results at the PAP NFPs meeting back-to-back with the Mediterranean Coast Day (Rimini, September 2013); Organisation of the side event at COP18; Dissemination of the project results throughout the Med and BS regions. 15

26 WP2 deliverable plans D2.1C Common conceptual framework for the implementation of ICZM! Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: R. Haines- Young and M. Potschin (UNOTT) Provide comments Comments by partners by 15 th September; Comments by PAP NFPs by end September; Finalisation by UNOTT by November Gonzalo Málvarez (UPO) Denis Bailly (UBO) Antoni Tulla (UAB) Plan Bleu Expected publications: Article in a scientific journal. Expected articles for the wiki: Summary for the ICZM Process D2.2 Report on the Stocktaking on ICZM in the Med! Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: B. Shipman and S. Petit (PAP/RAC) PAP/RAC to finalise after the NFPs meeting; Plan Bleu to revise the French version; November 2013 PAP NFPs Plan Bleu (Julien L Tellier comment:christophe, Pablo, at least, as well as Daniela & Alessio if agreed). Expected articles for the wiki: Summary for the ICZM Process D2.2 Report on the Stocktaking on ICZM in the BS! Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: M. Gvilava (BSC PS) Final editing by PAP/RAC together with the responsible author November 2013 BS Commission Expected articles for the wiki: Summary for the ICZM Process D2.4A Guidelines for the functioning of an Interactive Shared ICZM Governance Platform Main structure: 1 st part: Conceptual Framework 2 nd part: Lessons learned 3 rd part: Future of the platform Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: J. Le Tellier (Plan Bleu) Provide comments Preliminary version end October; Review end November; Final version end December. Yves Henocque (Ifremer) Brian Shipman (PAP RAC) Gemma Canoves (UAB) 16

27 Julien Le Tellier comment: Please note that del. D2.4A Guidelines for the functioning of an Interactive Shared ICZM Governance Platform is on-going and includes already several contributions from partners involved in the task (not only provide comments, but written contributions and inputs: papers, notes, boxes, minutes, etc.). D2.4 Business Plan Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: Françoise Breton (UAB) Athena Mourmuris Valeria Abaza Iulian Barbiere WP3 (Emilia Guisado) WP3 progress of work and status of activities: Task 3.2 Implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructure for Pegaso: Creation of a landing page for WP3 products; Development and integration of local geonodes in central SDI; VLIZ (Belgium), MHI/IBSS (Ukrania), HCMR (Greece), NARSS (Egypt), UNIVE (Italy), BSC PS (Georgia), UOB (Lebanon) and DDNI (Romania) have created a local geonode using their infrastructure or using other partnerʼs infrastructure, depending on the available infrastructure and resources, the scientific focus and the governance context of each institution (work in progress for some partners); Support for partners on the implementation of local geonodes; Harmonisation guidelines to integrate indicators and Ira results in the SDI. Improvements of the geoportal: New tools in the Viewer: split screen, query tool; Connection of geonodes and new layers in the Catalogue; Design, development and implementation of the Coastal Atlas; Integration of products derived of WP 3,2,4,5 in the Atlas; Preparation of deliverables D.3.2A, D.3.2B and D.3.3A; Coordination with other WP for Indicators and IRA products integration in the SDI. Task 3.4 Creation and maintenance of a collaborative web portal: Update and maintenance of web site; Changes to the layout of PEGASO Wiki; Updates website, news items (9 new items between 18 March 31 July); GIS layers related to the Al Hoceima Case have been uploaded (25 layers). UM5a is not having a geonode but VLIZ is acting as the local geonode for them. UNIGE is also acting as the local geonode for the BSC PS. Creation of wiki articles for Pegaso outputs: The ecosystem approach Enabling a shared information infrastructure for Med and Black Sea Scenarios and LEAC, Participation in the Cases How to explore science capacity SDI Publication of Pegaso products and results (Translations (English French): 1. Indicator Factsheets Built up Natural Capital D6.2 included in the Webportal as decided in Rabat (Bridge). 17

28 WP3 expected activities and milestones for the last period: Task 3.2 Implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructure for Pegaso: Draft report on status for central geonode and SDI state of art (version 3); Draft report on needs and new functionalities and feedback from partners (version 2); Final design and development of Coastal Atlas and integration of Pegaso products in the SDI; Final local Geonode Connection; Indicator results and IRA products integration.! Task 3.4 Creation and maintenance of a collaborative web portal: Web Portal updated every month/three months Helpdesk and training material; Creation of wiki articles for promoting the Pegaso products: Article about tools; Socio-economic valuation stocktake; Wiki article about Deliverable 2.4; BBN and Trade-off Analysis. D3.2A Report on the Mediterranean and Black Sea assessing SDI including existing viewers, their strength and limits, and the characteristics of PEGASO geoportal development! Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: UPO, UAB, VLIZ Main inputs: D3.1, revision of existing SDIs. January 2014 Jordi Guimet (UAB), Anthony Lehmann (UNIGE). Publications/outputs: MedCoast Congress presentation (scientific paper). Wiki article and technical report. D3.2B Guidelines and training material for the SDI construction, geoportal and geonodes functionalities, included data harmonization and interoperability, following INSPIRE principles, specially oriented towards capacity building with prototype! Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: UPO, UAB January 2014 UNIGE VLIZ Main inputs: ID Guidelines for building the PEGASO SDI and contents; Geonode Interconnection, I.D B Harmonization guidelines. Publications/outputs: Articles for the wiki and technical report. 18

29 D3.3A Coastal and marine atlas for the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: UPO, UAB January 2014 VLIZ, DDNI, JRC and IFREMER Main inputs: Results from Pegaso SDI, Indicators factsheets and mapping results, IRA regional maps and outputs, and CASEs contributions. Publications/outputs: Coastal and marine Atlas tool Article for the Wiki, perhaps a scientific paper. D3.4C Live Collaborative Web Portal Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: VLIZ, UPO January 2014 VLIZ Main inputs: Deliverables and products from Pegaso Partners (reports, wiki articles, SDI ). WP4.1 Indicators (Francesca Santoro) WP4.1 progress of work and status of activities: Methodological approach for indicator calculation and analysis with links to the ICZM Protocol and other relevant policies (e.g. Marine Strategy Framework Directive); Methodological factsheets developed and published; Contact with partners in charge of CASEs for indicator calculation at local level, definition of their contribution for the IRA. WP4.1 expected activities and milestones for the last period:!completion of indicators calculation from partners and possible publication on SDI; Training in Georgia; Training in Algeria.! D4.1 Report and accompanying fact sheets documenting a populated, core set of indicators for assessing progress towards sustainable development in the coastal zones of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: Francesca Santoro CASES: contribution in terms of calculated indicators VLIZ and Plan Bleu: methodology and overall doc review First version end of October 2013, second version December 2013, final January 2014 CASEs Med: Maria Snoussi BS: Sergey Konovalov UAB 19

30 Main inputs: Indicators for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM); Pegaso Indicators and the ICZM Protocol; The Pegaso approach; Methodology to apply indicators; Calculated indicators and their analysis; Conclusions. Expected publications: Medcoast paper + Possible extended version for a special issue in a scientific journal. Expected articles for the wiki: PEGASO project Indicators for Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. WP4.2 to 4.6 (Pascal Raux) WP4.2 LEAC progress of work and status of activities: Integrated database (cube) is created covering the entire Mediterranean and Black Sea study area (50 km from the coast) including land cover inputs and units of interest; Accounts (in the form of statistics per unit area) are extracted for land and species; Exemplary results are shown in CEM working paper 12 ( coastal wiki article ( ) and updated factsheet on LEAC; The internal deliverable is being developed; Contents of the final deliverable for the task are drafted; LEAC fact sheet updated and returned to Julien LeTellier for End user consultation. WP4.2 LEAC expected activities and milestones for the last period: Complete THE testing of applicability of the LEAC tool for ICZM (for ID4.2.6); Extract accounts for regional assessments; Organize the completion of final deliverable (including recommendations and guidelines for applying LEAC in ICZM).! WP4.3 Scenarios progress of work and status of activities: ID4.3.4, circulated for comments and uploaded onto Intranet; Developing models for BBN methodology (feed into ID 4.3.2); Scenario fact sheet and wiki text updated and submitted; Running BBN part of workshop at the 3 rd Pegaso General Meeting in March 2013; Overview of ICZM examples Literature review input into ID WP4.3 Scenarios expected activities and milestones for the last period: Input into Regional Assessment (M42); Draft, circulated and completed D4.3; Training material (video, Barcelona Autumn 2013).! WP4.5 Economic Assessment expected activities and milestones for the last period: Evaluation of implementation trials still on going in CASEs (BdR and Al Hoceima for a part of the approach); WS in TDV to test the indicator with stakeholders; Draft of the D4.5; to be updated with illustrations from CASEs (BdR and Al Hoceima); Inputs to RA (but different from T4.5 activities planned at infra regional level); Completion of Final Deliverable (M45) with illustration from CASES D

31 D4.2 Report, accompanying database and supporting materials on LEAC Methodology and how to apply in CASEs Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: Proposal of reviewers: Emil Ivanov (UNOTT) 1. Contributions from IFREMER/TdV are needed for chapter V of final deliverable Contributions from UAB are for chapters III through VII of final deliverable Main activities: Distribute proposed table of contents to partners; Request concrete contributions for the identified gaps; Video production on LEAC in Barcelona in autumn 2013; Complete final deliverable. Internal Deliverable will be submitted on 3 rd September, 2013 Inputs into the regional assessments (5.2.) will be supplied by 3 rd September, 2013 to task 5.2 leader The final deliverable (D4.2) of task 4.2 is due on 31 st October, 2013 Jean Louis Weber (EEA) For ID4.2.6: 1. Complete framework for testing LEAC applicability; 2. Complete spatial analysis and review of CASEs report for assessing LEAC applicability; 3. Communicate with CASEs to fill in remaining gaps; 4. Draw guidelines on applying LEAC for ICZM in CASEs and Regional assessments; Writing final deliverable D4.2 and provide updated accounts data to SDI if needed (changes needed); Prepare LEAC video on training in Barcelona. Main inputs: Spatial data analysis; CASEs reports; IRAʼs reports Contents for ID4.2.6: I Framework for testing LEAC applicability II Results on LEAC applicability III Guidelines on applying LEAC for ICZM Contents for final D4.2: Link to document Expected publications: Article on MODIS for producing land accounts; Article on LEAC applicability for ICZM; Article on Art. 17 data for producing species accounts. Wiki article submitted. D4.3 Report and accompanying multi-media supporting materials describing the use and application of scenarios for multi-scale ICZM across the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: Proposal of reviewers: Marion Postchin (UNOTT) UNOTT will draft the final deliverable making reference to the internal deliverables; It will then be circulated for comments and welcomes further contributions were needed (which will be acknowledged respectively). The final deliverable (D4.3) is due on 31st October, 2013; The content will be circulated after the SC meeting in September; The deliverable will be drafted for end September and circulated to T4.3 partners; The final deliverable will be amended and concluded during October. Jörg Priess (UFZ, Germany) 21

32 Main activities: Distribute proposed table of contents to partners; Request concrete contributions for the identified gaps; Complete final deliverable. Main inputs: Contents for final deliverable 4.3: Link to document Expected publications: To be identified in autumn Wiki article submitted: scenarios Ecosystem Approach BBN trade off analysis D4.4 Report, accompanying supporting materials and guidelines for the use of participatory methods and application for multi-scale ICZM across the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: Proposal of reviewers: UNIVE CASEs participation experiences description. Beginning December Julien Le Tellier and Gunter English Main inputs: What is Participation?; Participation for ICZM; Participation within ICZM phases / CASEs List of participatory methods Participatory methods and approaches related to ICZM phases Expected publications: Participatory Experiences in Pegaso Project (in the MecCoast Proceedings) Stefano Soriani, Fabrizia Buono, Andrea Bordin, Marco Tonino, Monica Camuffo D4.5 Report and supporting materials to economic assessment methods to decision making within the coastal zones of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: Pascal Raux (UBO) None M45 (Mid October for review) Main inputs: Review and stock-take of assessment methods and alternatives (completed); Considering approaches and methods in the context of PEGASO (completed); Pegasoʼs approach?(completed); A framework to assess the cost of coastal and marine ecosystems degradation (completed); The Environmental Territorial Diagnosis (completed); Implementation and application of the ETD over CASES (BdR and Al Hoceima) (on going). Expected publications: Cost based approach for ecosystem degradation costs; Expected articles for the wiki: Cost based and ETD. Roula Al Daia (UOB), Antonio Tulla (UAB) 22

33 D4.6 Integrating assessment tools for Mediterranean and Black Sea regions Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: Denis Bailly and Pascal Raux (UBO) None M48 Main inputs: Web platform to feed: WP5.1 CASEs (Stefano Soriano) WP5.1 expected activities and milestones for the last period: Communication and individual discussions with CASEs coordinators regarding the preparation of Final Report (May- June 2013); Communication with CASEs regarding the contribution to the IRA (June 2013); Collection of CASEs reports (15th September 2013); Preparation of Draft version of Final Deliverables (beginning of November 2013); D5.1A CASEs reporting including comparison among CASES and relevance of CASES in the whole basin; D5.1B Evaluation report on CASEs multi sector, multi administrative and multi scale work, Integrated approach method in CASEs; Submission to WP5 (task 5.1) partners for revision (revised by beginning of December 2013). To be discussed; Finalization of final Deliverables (beginning January 2014); Presentation to the Final Conference (mid-january 2014). WP5.2 IRA (Francesca Santoro) WP5.2 progress of work and status of activities: Development of a document on main drivers of change and root causes; Meeting with UPO, VLIZ, UNIVE, UAB (Sevilla, May 2013) to discuss about spatial data contribution to IRA and links with the SDI and Atlas; Table of contents, identification of roles, and time table of the Integrated Regional Assessment (IRA) defined; Definition of contribution in terms of spatial and statistical information in particular as results of the following tools: 23

34 LEAC Cumulative Impact Mapping Indicators WP5.2 expected activities and milestones for the last period: Contribution from CASEs, UNOTT, UAB, UBO to the IRA (September 2013); End-user workshop in Rimini (22-23 September 2013); First draft of IRA document ready to be sent to IUCN for layout (beginning of November 2013); Development of summary for policy-makers (end of November 2013) in Arabic, French and English; Final document (January 2014) only in English. D5.1A CASEs reporting (10 CASES at the end of the 5 phases: preparatory, phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 and conclusions) including comparison among CASES and relevance of CASES in the whole basin. D5.1B Evaluation report on CASEs multi sector, multi administrative and multi scale work, Integrated approach method in CASEs.! Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: UNIVE and CASEs coordinators CASEs reports and review 15 th of September deadline for draft CASEs reports; End October/ Beginning November draft version of the two Deliverables will be sent for review and comments; Beginning of December collection of feedback; January 2014 Elaboration of Deliverables for the final Pegaso Conference. Zelijka Skaricic Françoise Breton proposing someone from the UAB Denis Bailly proposing someone from the WP4 Main inputs: CASEs Reports. Document structure and contents: 10 individual CASEs reports (coastal issues, ICZM relevance and contribution, stakeholders involvement, achievements and lesson learned) and comparative analysis of CASEs contribution and relevance for the whole basin. Expected publications: CASEs each CASE team has its plan for publishing the results of the work done so far in the CASE. Pegaso CASEs and ICZM implementation (draft to be presented at the Global Conference, Marmaris [extended abstract]). Expected articles for the wiki. Synthesis of articles, reports in a wiki friendly-format. Revision of CASEs pages with results and lesson learned. D5.2 Report on the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basin Regional Participatory Assessment including Fact sheets showing the integration, outcomes and conclusions in addition to recommendations and Policy options in the region including Land and sea use maps and their use in guidelines for Maritime Spatial planning and Black Sea ICZM Guidelines as the governance tool for the development and application of the legal agreement framework for ICZM in the Black Sea Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: Francesca Santoro, Julian Barbière CASEs: contribution in terms of calculated indicators, and boxes as illustrative examples UNOTT: LEAC and BBN UAB: Cumulative Impact Mapping First version end of October beginning of November 2013, second version December 2013, final January 2014 Christophe Le Visage Pablo Avila Kathy Belpaneme (EU ICZM expert group) (Julien L Tellier comment: In my opinion, there is a 24

35 PAP/RAC and Plan Bleu: governance and policy aspects Main inputs, document structure and contents:!scope AND OBJECTIVES Pegaso objectives and context The conceptual framework in brief The methodology INSTITUTIONAL AND GOVERNANCE STOCKTAKE Institutional/governance stocktake Scientific stocktake Stocktake of Networks and Informal cooperation mechanisms ANALYSIS AND FUTURE Main issues and threats in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Integrated analysis in practice Balanced urban development and Conservation of natural capital SETTING THE VISION Governance platform How the PEGASO Governance Platform has developed The role of the Governance Platform in the future implementation of ICZM and MSP POLICY AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING AND ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT Expected publications: Possible paper on methods and approach proposed (peer-reviewed journal) Expected articles for the wiki: Regional assessment: methods and approaches. need for reviewers coming from Black Sea region for WP5 final deliverables, particularly for the IRA (PS BSC).) WP6 Capacity Building (Manal Nader) WP6 expected activities and milestones for the last period: Organization of the upcoming capacity building trainings and Pre & Post evaluations (ICPC workshops).! D6.1A Report and associated material and lessons learned from the trans-disciplinary project D6.3 Concept documents describing joint present and future initiatives (incl. additional funding) and strategies for building scientific capacity in ICPC countries.! Responsible author: Expected contributions from each partner: Calendar: SC proposal of reviewers: UNIVE Main inputs, document structure and contents: Short summary of the training; Training materials, Polimedia materials and wiki articles; Evaluation of the training; Lessons learned difficulty of addressing capacity building internally. 25

36 Expected publications: No publications are foreseen. D6.1B is to be included in D6.2 expanding the current glossary with additional concepts and glossary from PEGASO. UNOTT will provide a collection of relevant definitions and concepts, following the template of the wiki (See minutes SC Rabat): %20Pegaso-SC_1.0.pdf WP7 Dissemination (Erdal Özhan) During the last part of the 2 nd session of the SC, Erdal Özhan proposes to prepare a special issue based on the 7-8 Medcoast abstracts (Ocean and Coastal Management). For the D7.3A Peer-review summary document describing lessons learnt and recommendations and D7.3B Next Steps Plan, Erdal proposes to Françoise Breton to set a team to work on both deliverables. The deliverables should not be a list of activities but a summary of what we have learned. An article for an ICZM journal could be produced on the Chances and difficulties for ICZM in the Med and BS countries. For the D7.3B Next Steps Plan, IOC UNESCO is leading this deliverable that should be produced in parallel with the Business Plan but exploring a little bit further the next steps. It should be a short report of no more than 4-5 pages. For the final conference, he recalls that the SC members input will be needed to invite external people and also from the partners of the Consortium to pay for their travelling and expenses. It is important 1) to fix a deadline for agreeing on a final list of external participants and 2) to decide on which partners will be able to cover their expenses. Medcoast will communicate with the partners to have a 1 st list of the people from the consortium willing to come and also will communicate with the EU to check who will be free/willing to come. 26

37

38