Mid term review : unsatisfactory project direct recommendations i – ix revision of deliverables period 1 & 2,within 3 months reduce scope: (a) users, (b) themes, (c) Russian version, (d) field; SIA/IA more active approach: websites, dissemination, cooperation with other projects Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

Reduced scope Environmental, land use and social impacts, as in original DoW – 12 chapters Focus on the primary user, EC officer, maybe sectoral issues Russian version can be reduced variant SIA retained Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(i) A revised DOW –done, contains points i-vi and viii –contains revised budget distribution identical to latest CPF –has more graphs on methodology, but should be looked over for consistency and: is the main idea/potential communicated? Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(ii) internal communication and management plan project management group panels for methodology and e-textbook end-of-month meetings collaborative spaces chapter teams contribute to website and survey other projects Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(iii) strenghtened advisory board Carys Jones, Peter Groffman and Jorma Enkenberg as old members new: Phoebe Koundouri (economist), Michael Chernet (JRC), EC staff?? Advisory board actions in when the revised draft chapters are uploaded early 2009, - attending Workshop 4 :‘editing the e-textbook’ preliminarily set for March 2009 in Brussels, group meeting and statement - in summer 2009 when the chapters are finalized and submitted for testing (see WP6) and then submitted for an external peer-review. According to their own decisions as to dividing the work, the advisory board will report to the project coordinator giving recommendations on the quality and orientation of the e-tool. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(iv) engaging stakeholders  through the e-LUP work process of contacting EC for information, material, opinions etc.  a stakeholder session at the extra Workshop in Brussels, March 2009  training sessions as part of WP6 (months 42-44)  possibly, a launching event of the finalized tool  requisite: “profiling” of primary stakeholders  Cooperation with other projects who have done interviews etc. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(vi) external & internal review –INTERNAL: Each chapter editor/coeditors from the project should evaluate at least the chapter assigned to her/him by a random ordering (DoW, p. ). A detailed critique statement structured through a short standard form is required from each reviewer. –EXTERNAL: A comprehensive external peer review will be implemented. Engaging seven expert reviewers is planned. –ALSO: Inviting contributions from other projects will give feedback on contents, ‘the chapter pages’ on the project website will stimulate internal feedback on contents. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(vii) Survey of related projects a new WP2 report exists, the 1st version about 50 pages, describes other projects and their relevance for e-LUP but, a 2nd version is needed – a closer analysis of the related projects will be of great help in (a) tailoring the new e-LUP methodology, (b) selecting projects to be contacted, (c) conclusions on state of the art in SIA tools for our Chapter 3 ’Tools’. Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(vii) Survey of related projects –The survey has the following aims: –review the EC rationale and perceived needs behind the calls issued in framework programmes for a batch of projects focused on SIA and SD. –review recent projects focused on integrative tools for land use related modelling, and impact assessment. –review recent projects on global change, environmental impacts and ecosystems. –review recent IA tools & concepts oriented projects, including institutional and economic sustainability scenarios. –also explore other topics, not obviously connected to SIA or SD. –short list projects relevant at chapter level (of the e-LUP textbook). Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(viii) time chart / workplan Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

(ix) updated Period 2+ reports Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels later today...

WP 6 Testing testing in 5 jurisdictions, originally 3 planning of questionnaires external review and compilation of results Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

Website energized –updated –upsized –open and more engaging? Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

A new forum – run by chapter teams Updated pages, new pages outreach Better formulations materials downloadable

Revised WP2 report, outline Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels main focus is on training and decision support, encompassing four main elements: (1) treatment of issues, (2) of policies, (3) of tools and finally (4) assessment support. focus on e-learning, the added-value of which should be explored maximally (interactivity, multimedia). a rigorous analytical framework, DPSIR-framework, SENSOR benchmark?

Revised WP3 report outline Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels Meaningful integration of cases studies into the matrix should be guided by the Methodology The hierarchical chain ‘textbook – cases – models’ should be observed, but both cases and models also have stand-alone status e.g. on the e-tool side.

Conclusions we think we have valuable case studies we think the model visualisations will be useful we know that the challenge is the QUALITY of the e-textbook/e-tool Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels

Thank you! intense learning process