1. Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC Federal Office for the Environment FOEN Working sessions: Case example to explore method options Bern, 21-22 September 2015 Division

2. 2 Presentation name | Subtitle Author General case description - focus 7th EAP 1st priority objective: Enhancing natural capital Contains 7 sub-objectives: Biodiversity and ecosystems Fresh water Marine waters Air pollution Land management Nutrient cycle Forests

3. 3 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 1: Scoping possible impacts Warm-up session: considering priorities Focussing on 7th EAP priority objective 1: which of these sub- objectives are most important for your country? In three groups – discuss and chose 3 most important sub- objectives – write each one on a post-it and stick them up 10 minutes In plenary - looking across the selected objectives we will chose the 3 most important (and mark the poster accordingly) Method proposal: On national level discussion would base on existing strategy documents, goals, targets

4. 4 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 1: Scoping possible impacts Scoping key GMT factors: top-down What factors from the GMTs do you think will have most influence on your selected environmental priorities? In your groups, use the ‘pathways’ to discuss what factors are important for the top 3 priorities selected Chose up to 3 factors per environmental priority (write them into the matrix poster and mark the sub-objectives they relate to) 15 minutes Method proposal: Expert discussion using the illustrative GMT pathways and drawing on knowledge of national context and vulnerabilities

5. 5 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 1: Scoping possible impacts Scoping key GMT factors: bottom-up How do the results of top-down excercise compare to what the CLD model (bottom-up) shows us? What factors in the model appear most important? Plenary discussion using model (on-screen) Add factors from CLD to poster (as needed) 10 minutes Method proposal: Experts use generic model and develop as they desire to reflect national context, and use to test and refine understanding. Qualitative model as a stepping stone to quanitification.

6. 6 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 1: Scoping possible impacts Initial qualitative impact rating Do a first estimate of likelihood and severity of selected factors for your country: Each participant puts dots on matrix: Red: strong (likely and high impact severity), Green: weak (less likely and low impact severity) In plenary we chose 3 factors with most red dots (and compare to insight matrix from CLD) to continue exercise on day 2 15 minutes Method proposal: Initial qualitative impact rating through expert group discussions. Stakeholders set dots, argumentation is important, if possible group agrees.

7. 7 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Questions Should method outline provide more detailed guidance on identifying priority factors / impacts? Does an initial estimation (scoping) of what are the most important factors, as a basis for things to look deeper into make sense? Should national discussions focus only on environmental impacts or should it be all impacts derived from GMT narratives?

8. 8 Presentation name | Subtitle Author General case description … our mission: To produce an overview about how the GMTs influence the Union’s natural capital today and 2050 onwards and what the three most cricital issues are This should be supported by indicators and other trusted information In the end we should be able to concluded if current EU policy is fit for purpose

9. 9 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 2: Docking national information Docking information Discuss available information underpinning the 3 selected factors and note it down on post-it and place it on map: In groups from day 1 – each group to discuss 1 factor selected (selection is just for the case example) Think about available information, and studies. What outlooks are available? What do they relate to? White post-its: today (refer to indicators/datasets) Blue post-its: 2050 (refer to any forward looking information) 35 minutes Method proposal: Desk-based research of available information about priority GMT factors to understand what is known about these and their influence on current state of environment (priorities) and future change / trends.

10. 10 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 3: Prioritising GMT implications and policy needs Rating today’s information sources Translate your data (which refers to a GMT factor) into an indicator. What would be your assessment? Add a smiley to your white post-its State: positive, neutral , negative  Trend: positive, neutral , negative  10 minutes Method proposal: for policy / decision making purposes a more formal (and if possible quantitative) assessment of impacts is likely to be needed

11. 11 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 3: Prioritising impacts and policy needs Rating information sources for the future Translate your forward looking information source (which refers to an impact) into an indicator. What would be your assessment? Add smileys to your blue post-its To set your smiley think about: Level of uncertainty Severity of influence 10 minutes Method proposal: likelihood categories as well as risk assessment categories could be combined to assess forward looking information. For policy / decision making purposes a more formal (and if possible quantitative) assessment of impacts is likely to be needed

12. 12 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Discussion How do the indicator based ratings relate to initial judgement based ratings? How could risk assessment methods as well as likelihood categories (as for example used in the IPCC reports ) be used to categorise impacts? Could such an output be used in decision making or reports / assessments?

13. 13 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 3: Prioritising impacts and policy needs Plenary discussion Each participant to stick their post-its on to the map – on the relevant country Discussion to compare the three maps: Share general reflexions on what your information sources say for today / 2050: Plenary 20 minutes Method proposal: is there information available on possible impacts (today / emerging)? Does a pattern or picture emerge of differing national priorities and vulnerabilities?

14. 14 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Questions Should method provide guidelines for desk-based research? Are indicators (EEA / national level) the way to describe current situation? Should other information types be considered? How to treat knowledge gaps? To what extent is forward looking information on GMT factors (drivers, trends impacts) available?

15. 15 Presentation name | Subtitle Author Working Session 3: Prioritising impacts and policy needs Comparison to existing policy targets Plenary discussion: Are the chosen GMT factors reflected in your countries policies? To a degree that corresponds to severity/likelihood assessment? Method proposal: likelihood categories as well as risk assessment categories could be combined to assess forward looking information