ateam - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

ATEAM final report Section 5 and 6 (2001-2004) 48
collaboration. EEA’s Executive Director Jacqueline McGlade concluded that the new method of
integrated ecosystem assessment, using scenarios and land-use accounting as the ATEAM, is the
focus of a fresh set of EEA activities. Finally all participants discussed ways to best exchange the
information produced by the ongoing assessment projects and the EEA, which plays a key role in
improving the communication of scientific results to the policy arena and the larger public. Working with
the EEA will be necessary to provide the foundation for better environmental management in Europe.
Overall, the workshop was an exciting networking activity between policy advisors of the European
Commission, EU-funded research activities like ATEAM and AVEC and European organisations like the
EEA, as well as the global initiative MA.
6.2.4.4 Dialogue Evaluation
ATEAM’s value for stakeholders
Stakeholder questionnaires and interviews of ATEAMers were carried out as part of the evaluation of
the dialogue’s outcome. Independent observers participated in each general stakeholder meeting and
provided the stakeholder dialogue coordinators with interesting feedback. A detailed report on the
dialogue evaluation was produced (as listed in Annex 2).
Stakeholders were in general satisfied with the amount of information provided prior to workshop events
and had sufficient time to consult it. However, some respondents emphasised that documentation was
sometimes too rough, too broad, or on the contrary too specific, as well as sent too late to fully
understand the research focus and methods used.
Most stakeholders believed that the ATEAM workshops had been worth the time taken from their work
(Figure 34), as well as overall relevant to their work (Figure 35). This was supported by informal
feedback during the workshop, as well as by the readiness of many stakeholders to participate in more
than one activity. Indeed 11 of the 47 stakeholders participated in at least two of the ATEAM dialogue
activities. It should be nevertheless be noted that circa a fourth of all participants did not fill the
questionnaire and might have given less positive responses.
Overall stakeholder appreciated the workshop contents and the topics covered by ATEAM’s
presentations. However some stakeholders emphasised that too many topics were covered during the
events, which sometimes prevented to have an in depth discussion. Moreover some stakeholders
mentioned that some topics had been treated in a too dispersed way so that the outcomes of specific
discussion were too vague (e.g. on sectoral adaptive capacity and dissemination of the results).
Most stakeholders agreed that they had gained useful insights on European vulnerability to global
change, some of which they would be able to integrate in their work (Figures 36 and 37). Fellow
scientists and scientific/environmental advisers to the policy and management process were generally
positive in the usability of the ATEAM results in their own research and work. In contrast, for many more
professionally orientated stakeholders the actual model outputs, though interesting, were not suitable to
specifically guide their strategic and daily decision-making and management practices. As awareness
raising background information however, the ATEAM results were praised. The need to synthesise the
research into clear messages and to target these to specific audiences was highlighted. Moreover the
need for transparency was repeatedly brought forward, as stakeholders wanted to understand fully how
ATEAM results were calculated, and which assumptions were made, in particular concerning policy and
management.
Specific questions were asked to evaluate the quality of the interactions. Overall stakeholders believed
that they had been comfortable enough to express their opinions and that their views had been
adequately valued by all participants. Although it is possible that non-respondents may have felt
otherwise, it appears that ATEAM has managed to develop an atmosphere of trust and friendliness in
which positive comments and constructive criticism were encouraged and valued. Each session was
moderated (generally by ATEAMers), which allowed most speakers to participate actively. It was
however noted by some stakeholders that at times the moderators were not neutral enough and