Regional Workshop on GEO Resource Book

17-20 July 2007

Hua Hin, Thailand

Appendix 1: Detailed comments to the GEO Resource Book

Module 1

The module is well-presented in general, and describes explicitly GEO process. Many
examples at different levels were mentioned in the module for more understanding.

The module should emphasize UNEP assistance to countries and tone down UNEP
mandate to assessment. It is well understood that this is a part of capacity building
element, but no timeframe to implement the process was recommended. The module did
not clearly explain how GEO product and process does to policy messages. The
clarification of the scope of the RB is needed. It should highlight how decisions are taken
and choices are made. The module is slightly fuzzy in describing the scope of the
resource book. It should clarify how the approach of the resource book differs from other
assessment. Linkages between regional and local should be more precise. No coverage
on early warning and linkage to local environment was mentioned in the module. The
module should provide following points:
- evolution of the process over 12 years and how it has changed
- brief guidance for trainers on how to organize the workshop
- differences between IEA and EIA & SEA were described inadequately
- how to enforce GEO portal
- innovative techniques or methodology to deliver IEA and overcome some challenges
- gender balance
- techniques and methods of effective training and difficulties encountered and how to
overcome

Lastly, powerpoint file has mistakes and they need to be harmonized.

Module 2

The module is an adaptation of the resource book to national level. It was found that the
module was too descriptive and long and failed to bridge the national IEA process to
GEO process and to convince why the global process should be nationalized. The need
of having an assessment as a mandate was not convincing and capacity development at
different stages in the country process needs to be identified.

It should be more simplified and regionalized and more national-context in term of

capacity and way forward. The module should guide how to deal with scientific credibility
of policy makers that are often contradictory. And stage 1 and 3 are unrealistic.

The module did not discuss outreach and release of the outputs, how to involve multi-
stakeholders into the collective process, outline and timeframe of the process, linkages
to M & E and communications. Lastly, it was recommended that the IEA should be linked

1
in a timely manner to the countries NSDS a strategic approach for maximum
opportunities to integrate its findings to national economic planning.

Module 3

The Resource book is comprehensive and should provide a flowchart to show the
relationship and steps in each module. The fundamental comments to the module are on
the use of word “impact”, which is very confusing, and challenge and ethics of the
module to the process. The module has a few overlaps with module 2, 3, 7, and 8 (such
page 30-31 in module 2 is similar to page 12-13 in module 3). The steps in development
an impact statement is wrongly ordered. The module should be integrated with module 7
and 8 or alternatively should be located after module 6 and module 7 because the real
action is after developing policies/scenario and communications strategies.

The module can be strengthened by identifying best practices with explicit key elements
and good examples. It should reflect the regional impact strategy in term of what
challenges are and how to deal with them. Political issues should be paid attention and
leadership impact should be reflected. Target audience should be identified. There is a
need to define level and status of IEA and what support that can be provided by other
stakeholders in order to make the process effective. It was recommended to have a
diagram showing impacts and responses and how to integrate impact strategies of
overall impacts and linkages of national to local issues.

Finally, the slides and text should be compromised and implications of climate change
and its integration to non climate change factors is lacking.

Module 4

This is a good and comprehensive module, but a bit passive in approach. The slides are
more comprehensive than the text. Need of GEO portal at national level should be
highlighted. Time allocated to test module was insufficient compared to scale of the
content in the module and its importance in underpinning IEA analysis. There were too
many examples on quantitative data. There are needs to cover qualitative data and fill
data gaps, and to deal with challenges in data conflicting from different agencies in the
same government. The module can touch on how to harmonize data in selection
process. It should discuss also other indicators such as policy indicators and DPSIR
pathways, as well as data availability and sources and linkages to other indicators.
Methodology relating to indicators validation needs greater attention as well as the
methodology issues such as aggregation, integration of quantitative and qualitative data
etc.

The methodology in the module is weakly present. It needs to strengthen data need
assessment for IEA and related expertise required. The module should emphasize and
provide alternative methodology to deal with country-level data since core indicators are
very country-dependent. More elaboration on how to collect data to support core
indicators and to acquire data harmonization and how to secure reliable data should be
mentioned. The module should also cover on how to define sources of data such as
local knowledge as source of data and how to manage existing (complimentary and
supplementary) data.

2
Lastly, it was commented that the monitoring part in the module is misleading. The
module also fails to cover issues of data smog, uncertainty principles and surrogate data
and possibility to have public database is missing.

Module 5

DPSIR is considered a very good tool available for policy analysis. It is a challenge to
trainers how to use and apply effectively; how to transform DPSIR into a more positive
approach through selection of drivers or scenarios. The framework itself needs to be
strengthened to incorporate the time dimension and feedback loops of policy responses.
Economic evaluation needs greater attention otherwise the IEA exercise will stay
delinked from actual decision-making.

The module should refine the tools and methodology more explicitly since this is the core
of GEO process. Simple matrix to show the interlinkages was strong recommended for
better and easy understanding of DPSIR.

What missing are vision to reflect gap in policy, explicit reference to MA framework,
linkage to the scenario module to identify opportunities and benefits for the desired
drivers, advantages and limitations in the analytical framework, and checklists and step-
by-step to correct DPSIR system.

Module 6

Scenario development and analysis is an interesting element in assessment. The basis

for future scenario is options/choices for the society. The module should specifically
stress purpose of its use in IEA process unless the method can be misused and
misinterpreted. The module should mention how best to present scenario to policy
makers. Also, its application to be used in other context such as climate change and
variability/disaster management/disaster prevention issues will need more focus with
adequate examples

Scenario needs flexibility for scenario development approach and linkage between
scenario development and policy analysis need to be enhanced. In term of methodology,
the module should cover the development of quantitative scenarios and provide flexibility
in approaches such as top-down or bottom-up. Modeling should be brought into account
as well as links to other scenario assessment techniques such as environmental risk
assessment. Importance of quality indicator was missing from the module. Uncertainty
and risks must be highlighted. Linkage with DPSIR framework is too mechanistic.

Module 7

Dissemination of GEO resource book will be useless in case that the deliver process
was not successful. The way to develop a communications strategy should be linked
with module 3. The module does not have reference to the targets audience that would
depend on whom is affected – policy maker or society.

The potential of key communication channels such as media should be discussed. It

needs to address the conflict of communications and the management of the hostile
target audiences.

3
To identify ‘best practices’ in this regard would be beneficial points. Furthermore, the
‘Subjectivity’ or ‘Bias’ of the communicator can influence the design of the strategy and
the identification of target audience groups. So the RB needs to be discussed about this
problem.

Ways or methods and audiences in the communications play important parts in the
entire module.
The module should reflect this in the earliest beginning of GEO process as well as the
explicit explanation on effective and precise communications including the innovative
methods and technique for delivering messages. Communication procedure and policy
adaptation should be mentioned and the stage of communications needs to be set up.

The requirement of communication strategy for the IEA process and output was not
stressed.
The importance of communications strategy could not be over-emphasized in the
context of seeing the acceptance of IEA and its outputs. It needs to indicate on ways of
communicating ‘uncertainty’ in the data and information. There are some reflections on
the role and impacts potentials of the key communications channels are provided such
as media, education and public awareness approach. The module might instruct further
helpful hints in each communications strategies/its limitations and challenges. It also
should come up with more examples, more emphasis needed on gaining stakeholder’s
acceptance, communicating uncertainty dealing with emotion and hostility. The
communications strategy should be the underlying theme of this module.

Module 8

This module is too conceptual and abstract. More examples and innovative techniques
should be emphasized. Monitoring is the most important way to obtain data. It was
commented that monitoring relates to actions and evaluation relates to objectives.
Effective monitoring would improve the quality of the data and then improve the quality
of the report. Scientific evaluation of data lead to a scientific output and good evaluation
can make full use of the data. This module is targeted to facilitate the evaluation of policy
choices. Interlinkages between module 8 and 6 could be emphasized. Also, the module
needs to distinguish between Monitoring and Evaluation and guide how to conduct M &
E when lacking data and information. Some examples of monitoring arrangement and
success especially how to plan self-assessment should be provided with a highlight of
M&E indicators and a discussion on mechanisms. Framework & Process and Outcome
presentation from M & E were not discussed in the module.

Finally, it was recommended that since M & E is a capacity building tool, M&E should be
inbuilt within all modules and this module could extend itself as a Quality Assurance to
IEA process and be audited by an institute with a certify process.