1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

Название проекта, содействовавшего документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

Sustainable Coastal Land Management (COMTESS / GLUES)

Название проекта, содействовавшего документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES)

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

University of Oldenburg (University of Oldenburg) - Германия

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Когда были собраны данные (на местах)?

10/03/2015

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

1.4 Ссылка (-и) на Анкету (-ы) по Технологиям УЗП

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

Stakeholders have been involved in integrated assessment to develop action-oriented land use options addressing possible climate change adaptation measures as alternatives to traditional coastal protection strategies.

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: The SLM approach described here comprises knowledge transfer between the scientific community and practitioners through a “stakeholder-scientist partnership”. The exchange of individual positions, interests and needs concerning spatial planning activities and sustainable land use management was very important. This was also true for the investigation of relationships and interactions between the different stakeholders. Furthermore, a stakeholder-based definition of land use elements and ecosystem services enabled the stakeholders to work with scientific concepts. Land use elements are delineated spatial areas related to one specific use of land, such as arable fields, infrastructure or aquatic areas. Ecosystem services, by definition the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, include provisioning, regulation, cultural and supporting services. The assessment of stakeholder preferences concerning each land use element and ecosystem service allowed an evaluation by scientists and researchers. All suggestions made by the stakeholders are included in the project results.

Methods: In total, there were 38 qualitative interviews carried out about the stakeholders opinion concerning sustainable and adaptive land use management (with one representative from each sector), 14 quantitative interviews to determine the relationship between land use elements and ecosystem services, several telephone and email conversations, 7 focus groups (interviews with more than one representative of each sector), and 4 regional forums (attended by representatives of all sectors). Each participatory process addressed a specific issue, such as determining preferences, relationships or scenario development. These plenaries provided a platform for stakeholder discussions, group assessments and consensus-building processes on the different issues. The focus groups were built to discuss sector-specific issues in greater depth and to support the joint decision-making process. All the results were triangulated and validated.

Role of stakeholders: A heterogeneous expert group including all relevant actors (incl. land users) in the case study region was convened. Fourteen local and regional stakeholders acted as representatives of the various sectors: water management, nature conservation, agriculture, regional and local governmental bodies, and tourism. They covered all relevant fields and levels (from administrative to policy) of decision-making in the community of Krummhörn. The role of the researcher during the participatory governance process is characterised as the “knowledge-broker”. The knowledge-broker acted at the interface between research and the stakeholders. The tasks were to provide the context (land use) and detailed information (ecosystem services) and determine decision-alternatives (land management scenarios) enabling and clarifying the freedom of choice. Additionally, the knowledge-broker translated research results to facilitate the dialogue between the different sectors and strengthen collaboration.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Disaster risk reduction, stakeholder engagement)

The aim of the approach is to foster a more sustainable and adaptive future land use management process by including social, ecological and economic impacts of possible developments in the decision-making processes.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Coastal zones with their natural and societal sub-systems are exposed to rapid changes and pressures on resources. Scarcity of space and impacts of climate change are dominant drivers of land use and adaptation management today. The population of vulnerable coastal regions has to deal with these complex problems, and to develop suitable options for land use and adaptation management considering socio-economic and environmental changes and their impacts on the land management, and vice-versa the impact of land management on the socio-economy and the environment. Future land use management needs to focus on the interactions of the entire human-nature system, aiming at more sustainable development while focusing on the benefits that ecosystems provide for people.

2.9 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	интерактивное	Stakeholder analysis (snowball-principle) to include all interest groups
планирование	интерактивное	Local and regional decision-makers designed an actor-based scenario. They defined relevant land use elements and ecosystem services. The stakeholders ranked the land use elements and ecosystem services according to their preferences. Furthermore, they determined how important one land use element for a certain ecosystem service is.
выполнение	интерактивное	The regional spatial planning authority implements the results from the approach.
мониторинг/ оценка	нет	Not yet
Research	пассивное	The stakeholders have been informed about the research results.

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• преимущественно специалисты по УЗП после консультаций с землепользователями

Поясните:

Decisions were made by the stakeholder group. Guided consensus building processes on different land management topics.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Decisions were made by the stakeholder group. Guided consensus building processes on different land management topics.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

• decision maker

Тип обучения:

• обмен опытом между фермерами
• опытные участки
• общие собрания
• курсы

Тип обучения:

• knowledge brokerage

Рассматриваемые темы:

Training focused on possible consequences of climate change.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Описание/ комментарий:

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; They are aware of possible adaptation measures, based on scientific information and group consensus building.

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• нет

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Комментарии:

There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Not relevant

There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• социология
• экономика / маркетинг
• экология
• технология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

A transdisciplinary research project worked on providing information and collecting data concerning sociology, economics, ecology and technology. This information was used for the work with the stakeholders, to illustrate possible future scenarios and available land management options with their consequences. The results are shown in technology T_GER003en. Furthermore these results were fed in to models based on climate change and sea level rise scenarios. These models show the effects of the proposed land management on the ecosystem services provided in the region.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• 10000-100000

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF): 100.0%

5.2 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Нет

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• нет

Комментарии:

Labour was not rewarded

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.2 Основные причины, побуждающие землепользователей внедрять УЗП

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• да

Если да, опишите как:

It is very likely, that the involved stakeholder meet in future for continuation of the participatory process.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
The work on a common goal improves decision-making processes.
Research and scientists provide evidence and scenarios. They translated research results to facilitate the dialogue between the different sectors and strengthen the collaboration.
Active participation in transparent decision-making lead to positive outcomes for all participants. Participation is a positive and practical way to overcome controversial issues.

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
Together with stakeholders of the region, concrete and action oriented adaptive strategies will be developed.
Stakeholder collaboration promotes social learning processes, consideration of different world-views and cooperation and agreements.
Stakeholder engagement as important tool for implementing sustainable development and link cross-sectoral interests.
Stakeholders help to identify risks, impacts and values.
Stakeholders provide input to planning processes, they are meaningful partners and provide local knowledge.

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Different world-views of different participants.	Sufficient time for interaction and exchange. Be open minded.
Time consuming meetings.	Motivation, give feedback, ongoing information process (learning and knowledge exchange).
Scientific concepts are not easy understandable.	Use of simple language and avoidance of scientific jargon.

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
The work with stakeholders is time intensive and challenging.	Highling the benefits and the time and commitment gained compared to approaches which do not include the stakeholders and what the consequences are.
It is difficult to include all different interests.	Make the project interesting for everyone. Elaborate different options depending on the different interest and discuss the output (benefits and trade-offs).
Keep all stakeholders together.	Give feedback, ongoing information process.
“Subjective” character of research.	Trying to be as objective as possible.

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management – A planning approach, Leena Karrasch, Thomas Klenke, Johan Woltjer, 2014

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

Land Use Policy 38, 522-532; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837713002718