Group SessionDay 4

Session StructureSome perspectiveTo keep in mindImmediate Steps - Working GroupsActions from UNU-INWEHTimelineCo-chairs and group discussion on way

forward

We want you for your minds .... Both as scientists and for the networks you have

You were recommended to be part of a WG because of the contributions you could make

Searching for documents is not your job, it is not IW:Science’s job

Missing documents does NOT reflect badly on IW:Science or on your efforts as an individual and a group

PerspectiveIn 2 weeks (?) time each WG member to

provide;Relevant documents that you/your institution

may haveDirections if you cant locate documents

immediatelyListing of known documents that are missingKnown recommendations on contacts within you

networks

Then WG members move on

PerspectiveMUST capture and report the missing

documentation and the problems this poses to the project outputs.

There is no preordained outcome for the IW:Science Project.

You have the opportunity to examine the results of the $5 billion spent over the last decade by GEF on International Waters and offer world-class advice to GEF on what science needs to be addressed in the future. This is really important because: 1) you can help improve the quality of work done by GEF

in the future, no matter who does it; 2) you can help get GEF to fund the work you consider

important, and; 3) you can improve the protection and management of

those ecosystems you work with and consider to be of global importance. The GEF needs your positive, honest, and open contribution.

There are three levels of advice that GEF seeks from the participants in the Working Groups

1. Quality of documentation of past and current projects.

If the information on the science done in past projects is not

adequate to conduct a comparative assessment, WGs should say so and openly advise how best to rectify this deficiency.

What’s missing from the database and what is the best means of retrieval?

Should GEF spend money to retroactively document the science content better?

The project secretariat has seen that the compilation of past work has been problematic and is prepared to adjust the work plan, if necessary, to deliver a stronger outcome.

 

There are three levels of advice that GEF seeks from the participants in the Working Groups

 2. Comparative assessment of past and current IW

science. What new scientific generalizations emerge? Should this

comparative work continue in the future through the proposed Science Learning Network, or other means?

 3. The big unknowns of water science – the core

questions the WGs are being asked to address. Even if the comparative assessment of past GEF project

science is inadequate to address these questions, the WG members can draw on their own world-class experience to offer concrete advice to GEF on how it can best contribute in future to answering these generic, global challenges. Best judgment of participants, presented openly and candidly, is the goal.

Immediate steps – ok?In 2 weeks time provide;

Relevant documents that you/your institution may have

Directions/contacts if you cant locate known-to-exist documents immediately

Already compiling documents !!!

Actions1. Common synopsis template per

project in on IW:Science

2. Ability to search within a project

3. Unique PID

4. GEF TLA’s

5. Inauguration of LN group working spaces and assistance with forum design

Actions6. Once WG missing/known document input

received connect with IA’s and GEF7. 1 page summary of other Learning

Projects available8. Coordination with WG co-chairs on 2nd

WG meeting locations/timing9. GEF-specific documents. eg. STAP review10.Meeting Report

Project Timeline