WF – 1st Virtual Debate – Baseline paper for TG Environment and Climate Change
-
SIDEBAR
View uploaded documents by category
- Environment (17)
- Governance (34)
- Meetings (75)
- Miscellaneous (4)
- News (35)
- Project Management (38)
- Publicity (48)
- Regional Analysis (29)
- Uncategorized (1)
View uploaded documents by date.
Dear All, welcome to the debate. Be aware that, to keep up to date during the debate, you need to refresh your page continuously! If you participate to this debate, please post a comment to let us know you are there.
Also in this debate I will address the RAP format, especially part 3. As I wrote in the paper:
The approach is detailed, but will give an overview of clear activities. Do you think such a detailed planning is of any help for you to carry out your daily work, or is this overly detailed?
Such a detailed planning is not so usefull for our daily work because we are not the organisation who manage the waterways. Therefore the RAP which we developed is such detailed as possible for our needs.
PP15 (Latvia): There is 2 points to be kept in mind: (1) each partner has to elaborate RAP to be used further in practice and that such document in practice will be used in national language; (2) one of Project outputs will be joint RAP. Therefore the RAP have to be detailed as much as possible and without unnecessary wording in the same time. Possible solution is development of joint matrix (table) to be filled.
PP2: South Tipperary. I agree with a marix approach as it will be much easier to synthesise. It will also allow for partners to simplify by removing tiers / columns not appropriate for them.
I’ve some comments Glenn left me so here goes in response to Martijn’s first question..
I wonder whether the approach might be to give a detailed specification of short-term activities, with timeframes, but make longer-term activities more general. Some of the short-term actions might be to plan out the project and it’s longer-term actions in more detail eg. through feasibility / research studies
To keep the Debate synoptic and clear, please post you replies in the section Leave a reply, instead of pushing the reply option under the question. Else we need to shift up and down continuously.
Thank you Chris, I it should be exactly that: to detail short term activities and connect it to longer term action more general.
I think British Waterways suggestion is good as we will all have both strategic and short term goals. For South Tipperary, we have a lot of actions that will be led by local stakeholder groups and it would be good to help provide guidance on these initiatives.
I agree with British Walterways suggestion. All the partners will have strategic long term plans and short term actions. In South Tipperary we have many stakeholder groups that are willing to take the lead on actions but would need guidance / structure/ timeframe etc.
To Loreta and Labhaoise:
For me a matrix per partner would be great. It is actually what I proposed in Dublin earlier. Ferrara worked their plan out in a matrix, this could be the format for all of us.
About the level of detail, Loreta: I do not really understand your opinion in the first point you made: do you agree to make a detailed plan or do you think this should only be done in local language?
I agree for short term/ long term approach. Martin, pls. set what in our case will be short term and what long term
So I think the long short term approach is agreed upon the participants of this debate. I think short term should be a period of about a half to one year, what do the others think?
to Martin – Detailed, of course, but in format to be easy prepared. Refer matrix approach
I agree with Martijn – short term is a period of under one year. I don’t think it needs to say when it begins as there are some actions can start taking place now or in the very near future as well as actions that are currently underway that will also form the basis of the plan. For example, one of our actions is to ‘Further develop River Suir People – community network’. This is already underway but needs to built upon and maintained.
Probably longer, such as in same cases EU financial instruments should be used to implement activity. I suggest 3 years
Thanks for the input abou the matrix an the short/long term.
Now I would like to go tho the fourth question of topic 1 in my paper and cut this question in 2 parts, starting with the first:
1. Should we add a section in which you can ask for specific input form other partners in the project?
It should be very helpful.
Loreta, let’s say a period of about one year minimum with looks to the wider perspective in a more general way – but as detailed as you wish.
I agree . this new section could be useful
If you’re stuck somewhere in you’re own RAP it can be handy if one of the other partners can help you further.
What do the others -than Lorata (Elina)- think about including a part to ask for specific input from others?
maybe if it is a matrix approach there could be a column for input from other partners – in a siminlar vein to the good practices. Other partners may be able to provide guidance or solutions to specific actions.
OK with respect to – how short is short term:)
The second part of this question was that only details about the problem about which you have questions should be detailed. But with the short and long term approach I think we have an answer to this question.
For me short term is a period under a year.
Just out of the scope of this Virtual Debate today in Poland we celebrate Womens` Day so we would like to wish all the best for all women who attends in this debate
Thank you, have a nice Womens’ day yourselves
!
I agree with Labhaoise about the matrix and adding a request for input section.
agree to Labhaoise McKenna for using a matrix approach for this purposes, as well
I think the first topic has been treated well for now. So I will shift over to the second topic about carrying capacity of sites.
Hi Martijn, Here’s Glenn’s thoughts on this topic..
British Waterways uses a mathematical model to forecast boat traffic generated by new marina developments. This is then related to carrying capacity in terms of (1) available water supply for navigation; (2) ecological impact on sensitive stretches of waterway where additional boat movements may cause advert impacts; (3) areas of potential boating congestion (The latter is being considered at present, but it is not easy to define.)
Maybe there is scope to do a workshop / matchmaking session with partners in the Hague – to help fill in the input from other partners section. This would mean that each partner would not need to read all the action plans but could be able to help those with specific action they had trouble with.
my comment was on the first part of quesion
Thank you for Womens’ Day greeting! It is essential in Latvia where according to official statistics women are much more as men
It would be interesting to know if any of the partners have models for calculating carrying capacity for multifunctional waterway use as in Martijn’s paper. Anyone?
See above – but here’s BW response to this issue again..
British Waterways uses a mathematical model to forecast boat traffic generated by new marina developments. This is then related to carrying capacity in terms of (1) available water supply for navigation; (2) ecological impact on sensitive stretches of waterway where additional boat movements may cause advert impacts; (3) areas of potential boating congestion (The latter is being considered at present, but it is not easy to define.)
I agree with Labhaoise, such a workshop could be practical for every partner.
very good idea, Labhaoise McKenna, to discuss this issue in the Hague
Labhaoise, I agree that reading of all RAPs by all partners is not realistic, So I agree with your suggestion about the workshop.
Wouldn’t it be a possibility to create some kind of “forum” section, on Waterways Forward website, to be use for asking questions about problems partners have in relation to specific actions? This way, any partner, would be able to give guidance or input
Yes – I’m sure we could do something like that. Maybe set up a document such as this one and leave it open for comments/discussion over a longer period. Also don’t forget weve introduced the WF blog and the Linkedin/Twitter accounts to encourage more/wider discussions on various waterways related topics..
See additional reponse furher down the page..
Experience of PP15 is rather limited. Models to calculate carrying capacity for waterway use currently are not used in Latvia. There is some pilot projects introduced by myself (Loreta Urtane) were carrying capacity is calculated for protected lakes having status of Natura 2000 site. The following parameters are used to set requirements with respect to use of lakes having status of NATURA 2000 site: max number of boats, max number of bathing sites, max number of visitors in bathing site.
I think it would not have to be that long. It could be a ‘speed dating’ approach where partners showcase specific actions and another partner could provide a solution. It could be a facilitated workshop to make it easier. For example one of our main problems with an action is in ‘rights of way vs private ownership of land’. We would like to hear from other partners as to solutions they have had for this/ guidance on this.
Hey Labhaoise, I see you are promoting the Matrix in the other discussion too. I might call you Trinity form now on, you may call me Neo
if possible, the workshop in the Hague is a good idea
I agree with Spain’s suggestion of a Forum apporach either where partners could get advice on specific actions. I don’t think the virtual debate model would work for that as there would be too many actions and it would be too hard to get everyone together. But maybe some forum would work where comments could be posted and partners could give suggestions.
Too reply to Labhaoise and Alba: A forum on the web might be useful. Actually this Debate could be the place for that. However we could also think about a discussion forum on Linked In.
Anyhow I think a workshop in The Hague will be useful as well as it will be more interactive and quick
We also think that the workshop in the Hague is a good idea
I support idea provided by Spain’s and kept by Labhaoise with respect to Forum approach to discuss specific actions
I agree workshop is useful, more interactie and quicker. But maybe the forum would give some guidance in advance to the The Hague meeting. Moreover, you would be able to check and answer questions any time. This way if further problems/difficulties appear can be discussed in workshops carried out in The Hague meeting
You might have missed Chris’ comment to the carrying capacity topic:
See above – but here’s BW response to this issue again..
British Waterways uses a mathematical model to forecast boat traffic generated by new marina developments. This is then related to carrying capacity in terms of (1) available water supply for navigation; (2) ecological impact on sensitive stretches of waterway where additional boat movements may cause advert impacts; (3) areas of potential boating congestion (The latter is being considered at present, but it is not easy to define.)
We will take action to install a forum and organise a workshop.
PP 15 (Latvia) is interested to get more detailed information about mathematical model used by British Waterways
Hi Loreta – I’ll put my response in Martijns post below..
Chris, is the model you use available for other partners?
Does it also calculate amounts of people who might want to step on land in the sensitive areas, so that amounts of mooring places can be calculated?
It’s not available to other partners as it’s a specific model that has British Waterways data (the Canal lengths, Lock positions, junctions, etc) – and would be un-usable by anyone else outside of BW.
We use the model for two main reasons (1) to guage the effect of Boat traffic on water supply (particularly at the busy lock sites) and (2) to look at the implications on local areas (water supply/environmental impacts, etc) of opening new Marinas in certain places..
It’s less to do with ‘stepping on land’ – but more about the effect that more boats will have on the ecology/environment. We’ve done a lot of work recently to assess the impacts opening up new marinas – and hence higher boat numbers around the area, would have on SSSI’s (Sites of Special Scientifc Interest)
Loreta – we can certainly get in touch to explain how the model works in much more detal..
Could the Waterways Forward blog be a good place for the ‘Forum’? I don;t really know much about blogs but if someone knows more?
I have not yet tried the blog, I will have a look.
I’m not sure if that’s possible on wordpress and if that’s practicle to use the blog.
http://waterwaysforward.wordpress.com/waterways-forward-interactive-map/
Can’t we use Linkedin or something similar??
There is a waterways forward discussion already set up on LinkedIn
Yes – I’ve replied to Alba/Loreto a short while ago – and yes, alternatives are to use the WF blog and the Linkedin accounts. Just to be clear though, these are intended to be additional places where we can generate waterways related discussions with a wider audience than just the WF partnership. We just need to be careful to make sure that it then doesn’t get too confusing where to find certain bits of information (such as re. RAP ‘problems’ etc) We’ll be in touch more about this shortly..
I have the feeling the discussion about carrying capacity is slightly dying, so I post a new question:
In what way do partners deal with cost for making natural sites accessible while safeguarding the natural values?
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Waterways-Forward-4325703?trk=myg_ugrp_ovr
So we should bring the Linked In page to life. Other interested participants might join and help
The Linked In page is already full of life so that would be good. We need to get more people to join the group.
I just joined the group
Pls. do not submerge the discussion on carrying capacity!!!!!
With respect to next question – the following mechanism for protected sites is used in Latvia: (1) elaboration of Nature protection plan where need for tourism infrastructure (nature trails, bathing places, eco-toilets, waste bins etc.) and particular location of such infrastructure is defined; (2) targeting of EU financial instruments to be used for construction of tourism infrastructure. With respect to sites outside of protected areas the money of Nature Recourses Tax is used for area development. The efficiency of this mechanism is depending from wish of particular Local Municipality and of course from amount of given tax.
In response to the Question posed by Martijn
“In what way do partners deal with the costs of making natural sites accessible….?”
The Montgomery Canal restoration is an example of this. Here it is recognised that additional costs will be incurred in managing the canal for nature conservation, while developing it for boating. Two of the measures being used are (1) restricting boating, which will reduce income to the navigation authority as well as wider tourism benefits; (2) creating off-line nature reserves, which leads to additional capital costs. However it is recognised that the cost implications are worth it, given the wider ecosystem service benefits that will be delivered. Thinking about the project in terms of ecosystems services is a way to bring these wider nature conservation benefits into the equationhis is the final comment
(via Glenn)
I will thing about linking the group laer
We are also interested in this as our river is also Natural 2000 site
I copy the latest reply of Chris about linked in:
Yes – I’ve replied to Alba/Loreto a short while ago – and yes, alternatives are to use the WF blog and the Linkedin accounts. Just to be clear though, these are intended to be additional places where we can generate waterways related discussions with a wider audience than just the WF partnership. We just need to be careful to make sure that it then doesn’t get too confusing where to find certain bits of information (such as re. RAP ‘problems’ etc) We’ll be in touch more about this shortly
I think we should stop this virtual Debate for the moment. However comments are still welcome afterwards in this section. Anyhow I will address the latest questions about the carrying capacity in the forum after Chris comes up with a proposal where to address this exactly.
Thank you all for your participation
thank you Everybody! why do we start to use this tool so late?:)
Thank you Chris. I think it would be helpful to have more news about where to find everything (taking into account that right now we have more than one “WF” site. The Forum it was just an idea to consider, although we look forward to hearing about where to find everything ( WF website, WF blog, Linkedkin….)