1 / 7

Groundwater Working Group IW: Science

Groundwater Working Group IW: Science. Presentation of preliminary activities and findings. Ofelia Tujchneider and Jac van der Gun co-chairs Project Inception Meeting, Macao, 25 January 2010. The Groundwater Working Group (GWG). Team of 20 professionals

diep
Download Presentation

Groundwater Working Group IW: Science

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Groundwater Working GroupIW: Science Presentation of preliminary activities and findings Ofelia Tujchneider and Jac van der Gun co-chairs Project Inception Meeting, Macao, 25 January 2010

  2. The Groundwater Working Group (GWG) • Team of 20 professionals • Different professional disciplines • Reasonable geographical representation: • North America: 2 • South America: 2 • Europe: 11 • Africa: 3 • Asia: 2 • Group operational since about September 2009 • Ofelia Tujchneider (ARG), co-chair • Jac van der Gun (NLD), co-chair • FabriceRenaud(DEU) • Frank van Weert (NLD) • Stefano Burchi (ITA) • Mark Zeitoun(GBR) • Alex Makarigakis (ETH) • AbouAmani (GHA) • GuiseppeArduino (IDN) • Alice Aureli (FRA) • Andrea Merla (ITA) • ShaminderPuri(GBR) • Greg Christelis (NAM) • Todd Jarvis (USA) • Kevin Hiscock(GBR) • Emilio Custodio(ESP) • Julio Kettelhut (BRA) • Han Zhaisheng (CHN) • Alfonso Rivera (CAN) • Bo Appelgren (ITA)

  3. What did GWG do so far? • Familiarization with the project’s objectives and proposed approach • Preliminary attempts to addressing Core Questions • Start reviewing inventoried project documents • Preparing for Macao meeting

  4. Preliminary attempts to addressingCore Questions WHY? • Early start to get the group operational, (even without access to full project information) • To prevent running short of time during the project • To encourage thinking on the subjects, in preparation for the Macao meeting HOW? • GWG memberswere invited to prepare each a brief write-upon one or two core questions • Allocation of core questions as much as possible according to individual preferences • Only limited project information, based on suggested websites RESULTS? • Received so far: 18 contributions on 10 Core Questions • In addition: two more general contributions (background info) • Insufficient access to project information was (is) a severe handicap • Many interesting views have been collected already • Useful learning experience • Detailed info is crucial

  5. GWG’s review of inventoried project documents • First step (October 2009): searching the internet for websites on 18 identified groundwater related GEF projects • Second step (January 2010): assignment of tasks to review the IW: Science document data base (groundwater related projects) • Next steps: carrying out these reviews and initiating action for improvement (time frame not yet clear)

  6. Number of groundwater related project documents in the IW:Science database

  7. Preliminary comments on documents regarding groundwater related projects in the IW:Science document database • Are all 18 identified groundwater related projects relevant? 13 projects are aquifer or basin focused (8 of which are transboundary aquifer projects); 5 are regional or global projects. • Do we have to add projects? Suggested: La Plata project and Mediterranean partnership. Probably more can be identified. • What about adequacy of sets of identified documents in IW:Science documents database? Impression exists that the documentation is incomplete for all or most of the projects. Final reports for completed projects are almost non-existing. Technical reports are not numerous for most of the projects. • Accessibility of identified documents in IW:Science documents database? Several of the identified documents cannot be accessed by clicking. Absent, corrupt files or IT problems? • Projects to be excluded for lack of documentation? Unless more documents are identified, at least half of the projects has to be excluded from the analysis because of insufficient information available.

More Related