GEF International Waters Science Conference 2012 Bangkok, Thailand – 24 to 26 September 2012

A global analysis of lakes science and transboundary management

Outline

Composition of group

Objectives

Overview of projects reviewed

Some of the major deficiencies or challenges

Factors that improved the success of GEF projects

Developing issues encountered

Emerging science challenges

Overarching challenges and needs

First thoughts on priorities for moving forward

Group composition

Co-chairs: Kelly Munkittrick University of New BrunswickGheorghe Constantin Romanian Ministry of Environment

• Nikolay Aladin

• Sansanee Choowaew

• Navy Hap

• Karen Kidd

• Eric Odada

• Oscar Parra

• Geoffrey Phillips

• Sergei Ryanzhin

• Mark Servos

• Roberto Urrutia

• Russian Academy of Sciences

• Mahidol University, Thailand

• IFReDI, Cambodia

• Canadian Rivers Institute

• University of Nairobi

• Universidad de Concepción

• Norwich, UK

• Russian Academy of Sciences

• University of Waterloo & CWN

• Universidad de Concepción

Objectives and structure

Synopsis report for lakes types • critical science challenges “on the horizon” specific to lakes?• significance of regional and global-scale drivers in the genesis of transboundary problems?• how understanding and managing multiple causality in a transboundary water context is undertaken?• how variable spatial and temporal scales accounted for in IW projects?• approaches were used to understand/asses the coupling of social and ecological systems?

Analysis Report

Main focus

1.Critical emerging science issues

2.Application of science for adaptive management

3.Development and use of indicators to support IW projects

Overview of projects reviewed

• 58 projects in total•Few considered lakes solely•Most overlap with rivers•Few considered lakes as different ecosystems

Overview of projects

Critical science gaps

• an absence of baseline data on the system• a lack of pristine areas for study and comparison• a need for more rigorous study designs and regular effective evaluation of project deliverables• ongoing challenges related to a lack of regional infrastructure• failed to consider lake-specific processes and considered the lake as part of the river system, or failed to consider the past history of lakes

•many projects did not consider lake physical processes as a component of the system or as a possible modifier of impacts

Relatively “unique” issues to lakes

• lakes are often more dependent on external drivers such as changing land use, aerial deposition, and climate change. • the temporal scale of lake responses are often affected by retention times that result in response time frames longer than project durations- contributions of sediments and legacy issues- lake-specific processes, - atmospheric transfer across boundaries,- interactions of multiple stressors, - data from contributing drainages, - social and economic linkages

Climate change impacts on lakes

• salinity• water quality

• food web structure and biodiversity, • fisheries (alternate species, new invasive species)• navigation patterns and use of waterways

Project-specific issues that hindered success

• natural disasters (earthquake, hurricanes, floods, etc.), climate, and invasive species • changing political, economic and regulatory environments• inconsistencies in perspectives

•Common failures•use the best available and up-to-date science • replicate or use adequate statistical designs • explicitly develop or follow QA/QC guidelines for the available data • collect adequate data prior to initiating changes to evaluate the impacts of changes

Other challenges

• lack of relevant examples of innovative science approaches in lakes• absence of solid conceptual frameworks,

• more extensive (and appropriate) modelling activities are needed • shortage of reliable data for modelling and analysis, and a lack of verification and calibration of models

• gaps in considering or integrating approaches with traditional ecological knowledge were often evident.

Critical science challenges specific to lakes

• Changing economic, energy and agricultural policies• Changing climates (species, levels, quality)• Data management and modelling•Baseline data and historical documentation

Positive aspects

• Projects benefitted from • involvement of public stakeholders, • a process that included a commitment to public engagement, acceptance and uptake of recommendations

•Also benefitted from good peer review• the competition and evaluation of ideas and scientific thoughts during development of project, • a representative balance between local and international scientists, • a commitment to regular review and peer scientific review during data collection

• in many studies there was a goal of equilibrium and balanced participation between governmental, scientific and NGO influences.

Factors that improved the success of projects

• early and meaningful engagement of local stakeholders• early engagement of international science community

• respectful interaction with local stakeholders• rigorous peer review, and international science teams linked to policy development• linkages to social, economic, political scientists• effective utilization of traditional ecological knowledge

Important success factors

• clarity of the issue and of the objectives• a comprehensive TDA, with appropriate statistical design

• focus on basin-level scientific analyses, reviews and assessments,

• set achievable and measureable targets, and• separated the technical and political influences on scientific design

• peer review, trained staff, trained (and involved) stakeholders• need to improve the inclusion of social science

• education programs for decision-makers• linkage to the political and planning processes

Science application

• project must focus on building or strengthening

1) capacity,

2) regional cooperation,

3) involvement (participation).

Early on, projects need to

• Develop priorities for management activities• Develop criteria, indicators and milestones for project evaluation

• Use appropriate demonstration sites to evaluate criteria and conduct analysis

• Develop processes or frameworks for expanding influence beyond pilot sites•Identify and develop a strategy for dealing with implementation barriers;

• Develop evaluation procedures for transfer of change across levels of implementation

Recommendations for improving science

• external team should assess the level of local scientific capabilities

• capacity-building required • engage the local and global scientific communities early AND need a shared vision • local and global participants must have shared responsibilities, mutual understanding and respect, and well-defined roles • need to incorporate local approaches and traditional knowledge• mechanisms needed to pass communication barriers

Emerging science challenges

• need for • increasing the focus on the ecosystem level,• improving the development of proxy indicators,

• developing strategies for climate adaptation, • improving our understanding of long-range transport of contaminants, changing chemical use patterns, and the impacts of habitat rehabilitation, including reforestation

Over-arching actions

• effective capacity development and training,

• planning processes which include policy development and harmonization,

• the development of strong regional collaboration

• linkages to the international science community

Thank you

www.iwlearn.net/iwsc2012