MINUTES OF THE 5th IMACFORD MEETING
30 and 31 May 2003
The
last IMACFORD meeting took place at Pollentia Club Resort in Mallorca, Spain on
May 30 and 31, 2003. The aim of this last IMACFORD meeting was to wrap up the
previous work and plan dissemination, involving researchers, end-users, and
other interested observers. So, the two objectives of this last workshop were,
firstly, to prepare a dissemination plan, and, secondly, to prepare a research
agenda for Mediterranean forestry. There were 19 participants in this meeting
coming mainly from various forest research institutes in different
Mediterranean countries. The list of participants is available at
http://www.medforex.net/imacford.
Day 1: Friday 30 May 2003
MORNING SESSION
Presentation 1: Pere Riera
presented the MEDFOREX network. Firstly, he explained the origin, membership,
areas of study and resources of MEDFOREX. MEDFOREX is a Regional Project Centre
of EFI that deals with Mediterranean Forest Externalities. CTFC coordinates the
work, but there are 17 institutions from 8 Mediterranean countries that
participate in MEDFOREX. It is funded through the Spanish Ministry of
Environment, the Catalan Department of Environment and other programs. This and
subsequent presentations are available at http://www.medforex.net/imacford.
Presentation 2: Pere Riera presented
the objectives and background of the IMACFORD project (a 6FP Accompanying
Measure). CTFC coordinates task B2 of IMACFORD dealing with Mediterranean
forests, while the IEFC in Bourdeaux coordinates task B1 on Atlantic forests,
and EFI co-ordinates IMACFORD task A. He highlighted the emphasis on end-user
participation in IMACFORD and he pointed out that a total of 130 different
people had attended the various IMACFORD-B2 meetings. Finally, he said that in
the final IMACFORD B2 meeting it was necessary to look at dissemination
possibilities, to work on the research agenda and to match the priority topics
with funding opportunities.
Presentation 3: Nike Krajnc firstly showed the working
schedule of the meeting, then she asked all the participants to introduce
themselves and to highlight their research interests. Secondly, she introduced
the working methods, which would be used during the meeting. She finally
explained the rules for a fruitful discussion, and she indicated the two main
objectives of the meeting:
1.
Dissemination of project results
2.
Preparation of project agenda
Moreover,
she highlighted that participants should bear in mind that the meeting and
discussions should refer to the Mediterranean area, and she focused on
dissemination of the results:
1. Dissemination of project results
Dissemination
means
to spread or give out something, especially news, information, ideas… But
dissemination is not just distribution it is much more. Dissemination implies
spread, exchange, choice and implementation. Information must be distributed in
such a way that end-users can reach it, understand it and use it. Dissemination
is a complex topic that is why it was decided to introduce a three-step method.
1st step:
Lecturing
method: A presentation of the general results of
previous IMACFORD meetings was given by Pere Riera (see Presentation 2).
2nd step:
Individual work: Identification of relevant
end-users
Participants were asked to work individually in
order to fill in a form (Annex
2) which was developed to identify:
- up to 3 most important
organisations in the participants’ region that could be potential
end-users of the IMACFORD results
- the most appropriate media/medium
for them - (up to 3 according to their adequacy)
Each
participant had to write down at least 3 end-users (stakeholders) in his
country/region which could/should be interested in the IMACFORD B.2 results and
also for each of the identified stakeholders, how to present the results to
them (e.g. oral presentation, e-mail, internet, article, report, etc.). See
results in Presentation 7.
The goal of this method was to gather the precise names of the institutions, organisations or associations that are considered to be the most important end-users for IMACFORD results in participating countries. The results were also the background for the group process, which was introduced on the second day of the workshop, when our task was to prepare action plans for effective dissemination of the project results (3rd step).
Presentation 4: Andreas Ottistch gave
a presentation on the various possibilities of calls responding to the
different priorities defined in the 6fp regarding forestry in Europe and in the
Mediterranean region. He highlighted that the priorities with high potential
for MEDFOREX were: global change and ecosystems, policy oriented research,
science and society and various support activities (such as special programs
for Mediterranean countries).
Firstly,
he stressed the possibilities for calls in Spring, 2004 for global change and
ecosystems concerning forest economics and modelling, as well as projects
dealing with forest multifunctionality and sustainable development of rural
areas. According to his opinion, there is realistic change for projects to be
considered positively in the evaluation of these kinds of proposals. Concerning
the priority “policy oriented research”, he highlighted that proposals should
have a link with agriculture and with sustainable forestry. Regarding the
priority on “Science and Society” (calls for December, 2003), he pointed out
the following issues: participatory systems, information systems, discussion,
etc. emphasising the integration of end-users in the development of the
research plan itself. Finally, he explained that there were other additional
possibilities in “Integrating and Strengthening European Research Areas. As for
Mediterranean partners, the issues of renewable energies and environmental
risks were pointed out.
Andreas
Ottitsch concluded that, although large activities were already booked (some of
them under the EFI umbrella), there were still “small activities” open until
2004. Please see Annex I for the information on further questions after this
presentation.
Presentation 5: Robert Mavsar explained
the second objective of the meeting: the preparation
of a research agenda. It consists in
preparing the titles and outlines of specific research programs and possible
programs where to submit them. He defined a project as a set of interrelated
tasks leading to the achievement of an overall objective or milestone, and he
also pointed out the various phases in order to define a project. In this
workshop, the first step would be to choose the topics and the second one, to
define projects (as shown bellow).
2.
Preparation of project proposals– research agenda
Defining a project is a process of selection and reduction of the ideas
and perspectives of those involved into a set of clearly defined objectives,
key success criteria and evaluated risks. To prepare a few project proposals
for the most relevant topics in forestry for the Mediterranean part of Europe
we presented a four-step method.
1st step:
Voting
with neutral scoring units
Neutral
scoring can be used to enable people to rank which of a list of issues are most
important to them. They can be used to prioritise things in a non-threatening,
rapid, anonymous, transparent democratic and enjoyable way. A list of up to 70
options can be used and people are asked to put different number of neutral
scoring units on the options they prefer. In our case we had 9 topics and each
participant had 5 colour dots (stickers). Each dot represents a point. It is up
to each participant to decide how to distribute his/her five points among all
suggested topics.
The list of the 9 most relevant topics was prepared due to previous
workshops and voting in the past. The percentage of votes that each topic got
in different workshops (Barcelona, Lisbon, and Istanbul) was calculated. All
percentages were then summarised and topics were ranked due to the sum of %.
Nine topics with the highest sum were selected and presented for voting.
Topics:
- Biodiversity
conservation
- Climate change
- Forest fires
- Integrated Management
- Land use planning and
options
- Participatory appraisal
- Policy design and
evaluation
- Rural development,
rural decline and land abandonment
- Tourism and urban
pressure
Before voting, participants agreed to do it openly
without thinking under which program the topic should be submitted or which
other studies are currently under way in the field. See Annex I for detailed
information on the discussion.
2nd step:
Lecturing method: Two
lectures were given on different possibilities for submitting the project
proposals (presentations 4 and 12).
AFTERNOON SESSION
Presentation 6: According to the results of
the voting, Nike Kranjc presented
the most relevant topics for research on Mediterranean forestry:
- Integrated management
(20 votes)
- Land use planning and
options (12 votes)
- Participatory appraisal
(9 votes)
·
Policy design and evaluation (9 votes)
- Rural development,
rural decline and land abandonment (9 votes)
The
three selected topics were: integrated management, land use planning and
options, and policy design and evaluation.
Table 1:
Comparison of % of votes for topics on different IMACFORD meetings
|
Topic |
% of votes |
|||
|
Society demands |
Personal perspective |
Istanbul group |
Mallorca |
|
|
Policy design and evaluation (including research on
financing) |
18 |
7 |
11 |
11 |
|
Land use planning and options |
11 |
15 |
6 |
14 |
|
Rural development, rural decline, and land abandonment |
11 |
3 |
9 |
11 |
|
Integrated management |
7 |
9 |
8 |
24 |
|
Biodiversity conservation |
7 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
|
Participatory appraisal (including interactions
between stake-holders) |
4 |
5 |
7 |
11 |
|
Forest fires |
3 |
4 |
6 |
9 |
|
Climate change |
4 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
|
Tourism and urban pressure |
4 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
3rd step:
Dividing
participants into groups
According
to the number of participants, it was decided to have 3 working groups. Each
group should prepare a project proposal for one of the relevant topics. Five
relevant topics were selected from the previous list of topics (those which got
the highest number of votes, as explained in presentation 6).
Each
participant wrote his name on a post-it and then they were randomly selected to
express their interest. Each participant was invited to express his interest in
preparing project proposals for different topics by placing the post-it with
his name on a selected topic. In this way participants were divided into groups
according to their interest, knowledge, specific area of work and alike.
Also,
a chairman and a reporter were elected in each group. The main role of the chairman
was to co-ordinate work within the group. The reporter had to report about work
group, he had to present results to all participants. Robert Mavsar and Nike
Kranjc performed as moderators.
4th
step
Preparation
of project proposal
Each group got a poster (Figure 1).
Figure 1:
Poster for preparation of project proposal
The
project proposal should answer the following six questions:
1.
what is/are the purpose/s of the project;
2.
which are the projects objectives;
3.
what are the expected results;
4.
who should participate in the project;
5.
into which research programme the project could
fit;
6.
what is the project’s title.
The
work was undertaken step by step. Each question was presented separately. For all these steps,
participants first thought for ideas individually (writing from 1 to 3 options
on a post-it) and, then, they discussed them in the group in order to reach a
consensus, resulting into one group proposal.
Day 2: Saturday 31 May
2003
MORNING SESSION
Presentation 7: Robert Mavsar pointed
out the most important end-users highlighted by participants the previous day,
as well as the most appropriate dissemination means so that the IMACFORD
results could reach them.
According
to participants, the most important end-users were:
- Government (at national
and regional level): Ministry of Environment, of Forestry and of
Agriculture
- Research Institutions
- NGO’s and forest owner
associations
- Professional Forestry
Organisations (Forestry Service)
- Others (public)
And
the most adequate media were mainly:
- A brief summary
- Meetings
- Public presentations of
results
- Person to person
communication
- Workshops
However, other means were also mentioned, such as articles in newspapers, email lists, homepages, EFI News, publications, articles in scientific magazines.
3rd
step (Objective 1: Dissemination of the results)
Group work: Preparation of an action plan for
dissemination of the results
Participants were divided into 4 groups each group got a poster (Figure 2). According to results from the first day we identified
5 different groups of end-users (government, research institution, professional
forestry organisation, NGOs and private owners and the public). Each group had
to prepare an action plan for the dissemination of the project results to one
specific group of end-users.
A
similar strategy to the previous day was used. A chairman and a reporter were
elected in each group, and Robert Mavsar and Nike Kranjc performed as moderators.
Figure 2: Poster for an Action plan preparation
The
action plan should answer the following five questions:
1.
What
should be disseminated? - Content: To identify, at least, the basic elements of the project
content to be disseminate to each of the potential user groups identified.
2.
How
should it be disseminated? - Medium: To describe the medium or media through which the content
of your message can be best delivered to the potential users and to describe
the capabilities and resources that will be required of potential users to
access the content for each medium to be used.
3.
Who
will prepare and disseminate the content?
4.
What
are the possible barriers? - Barriers: To identify potential barriers that may interfere with
the targeted users’ access or utilisation of your information and to develop
actions to reduce these barriers.
5.
How
will we know that the dissemination was successful? - Success: Describe how you will know if
your dissemination activities have been successful. If data is to be gathered,
describe how, when, and who will gather it.
Each question was presented. Each member first thought individually and
then discussed among the other participants in the group in order to agree with
a final opinion.
Group reports and discussion followed group work.
Presentation of dissemination
plans (Annex 4)
The dissemination plans that were elaborated by
the various groups are presented in Annex
4.
Presentation 8: Gregor Chatziphilippidis presented
the dissemination plan for NGOs.
Presentation 9:
Andreas Schuck presented
the dissemination plan for research
institutions.
Presentation 10: Marc Palahí presented
the dissemination plan for governments.
Presentation 11: Andreas Ottitsch presented the
dissemination plan for Professional
Forestry Organisations.
After these presentations the comments referred to
the barriers, which could also be influenced by the political orientation of
the organisation, and the possible problems of relying on internet. It was
highlighted that dissemination consisted in a 2-step project: spreading
information and valuation of the success. It was agreed that only one summary
(plus a power point presentation) would be produced by IMACFORD task B2
coordinator and distributed to all participants, who should contribute in
spreading the information. See Annex I for a more detailed discussion.
Finally,
Nike Kranjc presented a target where
participants had to indicate how the work done at the various IMACFORD meetings
had fulfilled everyone’s expectations. The results showed that participants
were quite satisfied with the results (Table
2).
Table 2: Results of the “shooting into the target ”
|
Score |
No. of hits |
|
3 |
3 |
|
3,5 |
1 |
|
4 |
6 |
|
4,5 |
1 |
|
5 |
1 |
Presentation 12: Esteban Manrique made
a presentation on the available EU
research programs and their contents, and he focused mainly in SSA (Special
Support Actions) and ERA net (which is a new opportunity in FP6). SSA calls are
open all the time, and there are various opportunities for forestry under
various headings, for example “qualitative and quantitative aspects of
multifunctionality of agriculture and forestry/ wood chain” or “lessons from
past research on sustainable production and utilization of forests” or
“Specific Support to Policies” (environmental policies are important).
Regarding the ERA-Net scheme, there is a possibility for co-operation in the EU
in an open way, as countries can contact other partner countries and put
together a proposal. He explained that the EC pays for the coordination that
national funding agencies put the money for research. He finally compared
ERA-Net, COST and EUREKA.
The
discussion focused on clarifying the ERA-Net scheme, number of applications and
influencing the work plan. Please see annex I for more details.
Presentation of project proposals
The various group reporters explained the results concerning the project proposals that were prepared on the previous day (see Annex 3).
Presentation 13: Maria Loureiro presented
the project proposal that her group had prepared on Land Use Planning and
Options.
After this presentation, Esteban Manrique
highlighted that the money devoted to STREPs under priority 6.3. is very little
(only 15%).
Presentation 14: Marc Palahí presented
the project proposal on Integrated Management.
Presentation 15: Gregor Chatziphilippidis presented
the project proposal on Policy Design and Evaluation. After this presentation, Maria Loureiro highlighted the
overlapping between land use planning and integrated management
Expression of interest in active participation on proposed projects
Nike Kranjc and
Robert Mavsar asked participants to
write their names under those projects in which they would be interested in
participating if submitted. Each participant was given 2 papers: a green one
for his/her first choice and an orange one for his/her second choice.
Most participants (9) expressed interest to
participate in the project dealing with Integrated Management, while six
participants have chosen Land Use Planning and Options as their “first choice”.
Detailed results are presented in Table
3.
Table 3 Results of the “expression of interest”
|
Topic |
1st choice |
2nd choice |
|
Integrated
management |
9 |
2 |
|
Land-use
planning and options |
6 |
7 |
|
Policy
design and evaluation |
0 |
6 |
Discussion on MEDFOREX 2 proposal
Pere Riera
asked whether there was an opportunity to apply for a SSA and whether there was
an special program that would fund for dissemination of research results. Andreas Schuck said that there was an
INCO project that aimed at contributing to 3 elements, one of them is the
analysis of dissemination results and the other is to prepare for future
activities. This could be a concrete project to apply for. Pere Riera agreed that this was a good idea and that they good
prepare a proposal. The deadline is on September 4, 2003.
Besides
that, Esteban Manrique stressed that
there are SSA defined under program 6.3. that offer different opportunities for
forests in various areas, such as externalities and lessons from the past. SSAs
are continually open.
Presentation 16: Michel Malagnoux
presented the origin, background, historical evolution and functions of Silva
Mediterranea. It was first created at the beginning of the XX century as an NGO
on Mediterranean Forests. Later, it became an intergovernmental organisation
for discussion, exchange and coordination of actions on Mediterranean forests.
A research group was also created and it had more and more importance. In the
90s there was a crisis, as decision makers became less interested in Silva
Mediterranea and it went under revision. It was decided that Silva Mediterranea
should continue, since it was the only form to deal with Mediterranean forestry,
also in Northern Africa, but it should not concentrate on research. Nowadays,
the strategy is to cooperate as much as possible with all stakeholders dealing
with Mediterranean Forests (NGOs, research organisations, etc), offering tools
and guidance.
Hamed Daly
asked whether they were in touch with AIFM, and Michel Malagnoux said that they
were collaborating.
Annex 1: Further questions, comments and discussion
DAY 1
Questions and comments before individual work for
defining the endusers: Maria Loureiro asked for clarification about which ones were the
results that were to be disseminated. Pere
Riera clarified that they were referring to the results of the last 4
IMACFORD meetings and how to make they available for every one. Yves Birot also explained that IMACFORD
was a project that as initially designed to prepare for the 6fp, although it
was delayed and it had overlapped with the first 6fp first call. So, he said
that IMACFORD also aimed, as a result, at defining research projects for the
future. Pere Riera agreed with him,
although he said that he would like to go a step further and disseminate the
results among people. Lorenzo Venzi
clarified that there was still time, though the second call for projects.
Questions and comments (before voting/ topic
selection): Yves Birot pointed out that topics should be chosen according to the possibilities
to ask for projects (as Andreas Ottistch had just explained). On the other hand
there may be other research teams working on this topics and it is not worth
voting them, such as the EUFire Lab that are dealing with forest fires. Andreas Schuck said that there are a
lot of activities in different fields and participants may not be aware of all
of them. So, maybe for this voting procedure, it could be open, but when
applying for a project it needs to be seen what has been done in that field. Pere Riera added that topics are very
broad and that they can fit in different instruments that Andreas Ottitsch
mentioned. Andreas Ottitsch also
agreed that participants should be open for voting. Mohammed Ellatifi said that the list of topics could be rewritten,
as they may have a different meaning and sound differently in different
countries. Also, he added that most of them could be included in Sustainable
Forest Management. However, Nike Kranjc said
that this was a final meeting and that a decision on topics should be made. Pere Riera emphasised before the voting
that one of the aims of the IMACFORD was to report to the European Commission
in order to be able to take the conclusions into account in their calls.
DAY 2
Questions and comments before the preparation of
dissemination plans: Robert Mavsar clarified the aims of the various IMACFORD-B2
meetings and he stressed that one of the objectives of this final meeting
should be to prepare a dissemination plan of IMACFORD results. Pere Riera gave some examples on what to
disseminate (such as the rankings of important topics for Mediterranean forest
research distinguishing between end-users and researchers or the means how to
communicate between end-users and researchers).
Discussion and comments on the dissemination plans:
Questions and comments after presentation 8: Lorenzo
Venzi pointed out that the political orientation of
the NGO could also be a barrier for dissemination. Mohammed Ellatifi said that it is not always good to rely on
internet and emailing lists, as organisations may not read the messages due to
the large amount of mail. Andreas Schuck
proposed to go through all presentations first and have a common discussion at
the end.
Comments and questions after presentation 9: Yves Birot pointed out that results
should also be disseminated through newspapers, and forest magazines if they
need to reach researchers. He also said that language is not a barrier for the
scientific community, and that a measure of success could be future
partnerships. Lorenzo Venzi said
that there is a 2 step project: dissemination and valuation.
General comments on dissemination plans
Andreas Schuck pointed
out that dissemination is a two-step process: first you need to inform and,
second, you need to see what happens (to validate). Lorenzo Venzi agreed with this opinion, as first it is necessary to
distribute the report and, after that, it is needed to share what it has been
seen and to discuss the success. Also, it is important to disseminate the same
quality of information. Nike Kranjc
said that a report/ summary of the results is needed so that it can be
distributed by IMACFORD participants in their countries, she added that it is a
matter of networking, too. Pere Riera
added that it would be interesting to have different executive summaries for
different targets. However, Yves Birot
thought that this idea would be too complicated and that it would be better to
have only one executive summary. Nike
Kranjc agreed with this last idea, and she added that both a summary and a
power point presentation could be prepared. Alexi Danchev highlighted the need of concentrating in active
reaction (such as email lists or personal contact), rather than in passive
reaction. Nike Kranjc pointed out
that it would be a good idea to spread the information among the 130 IMACFORD
participants.
Gregor Chatziphilippidis
addressed the importance of establishing an email list and organising
discussion groups in order to see the interest. If discussion groups were
organised at a national level, language barriers would be suppressed. Alexi Danchev added that the language
barrier was different at the research level and at the NGO level. Robert Mavsar summarised the ideas
brought up in the discussion by saying that CTFC could prepare a document and
participants from different nations (National Contact Points) could then also
contribute in spreading the information.
Questions and Comments after presentation 12:
Gregor Chatziphilippidis said
that sometimes it was difficult to find partners for proposals. Esteban
Manrique answered that this was always a problem, specially in Southern Europe,
but it could be improved through NCP (National Contact Points). He also asked
for information on how many proposals had been submitted in the first call.
Esteban Manrique replied that there was no information on that yet, there would
be a meeting in July, but program 6.3 is working slowly, all the work had been
evaluated but not the results. Esteban
Manrique clarified to participants that
through ERA-Net EC payed national agencies that finance research so that
they could make a common call. Different organisations (such as charities,
foundations, agencies, universities, etc) could participate and put together a
project, but these projects need to be paid at the national level through the
appropriate agency or ministry. He also pointed out that national ministries
could fund for research outside their own country through this mechanism.
Andreas Schuck
pointed out that, in the framework of INCO, projects specific SSA and STREPs,
where African and Eastern countries could participate, were open this year and
wondered if Esteban Manrique had information on that, which was not the case. Lorenzo Venzi asked how it would be
possible to influence the Work Plan for the next calls. Esteban Manrique
answered that this should be done through lobbying, as it had already been
mentioned.
Annex 2: Form for the identification of potential
end-users
