In this Issue
Photo: C. vBers
|
|
|
The Society
The Integrated Assessment Society is a not-for-profit entity created to promote the community of inter-disciplinary and disciplinary scientists, analysts and practitioners who develop and use Integrated Assessment (IA). The goals of the society are to nurture this community, to promote the development of IA and to encourage its wise application.
Integrated Assessment can be defined as the interdisciplinary process of integrating knowledge from various disciplines and stakeholder groups in order to evaluate a problem situation from a variety of perspectives and provide support for its solution. IA supports learning and decision processes and helps to identify desirable and possible options for addressing the problem. It therefore builds on two major methodological pillars: approaches to integrating knowledge about a problem domain, and understanding policy and decision making processes. IA has been developed to address issues of acid rain, climate change, land degradation, water and air quality management, forest and fisheries management and public health.
|
|
|
Feature
Co-producing climate resilience assessments: Insights from seven midsize cities in the North Sea Region
Gül Özerol, University of Twente, The Netherlands; g.ozerol@utwente.nl
This article is a summarized and adapted version of: Özerol, G., Dolman, N., Bormann, H., Bressers, H., Lulofs, K., Böge, M. (2020). Urban water management and climate change adaptation: A self-assessment study by seven midsize cities in the North Sea Region. Sustainable Cities and Society, 55, 102066, which is based on the methods and results of the CATCH Project, co-funded by the Interreg VB North Sea Region Programme.
Urban Climate Resilience Challenges
The concept of urban climate resilience was introduced by Tyler and Moench (2012). They define it based on three major elements: 1) systems that function under different conditions and absorb shocks; 2) actors that organize themselves, have access to resources, learn from experiences, and acquire new skills, and 3) institutions that link the systems and actors, and stimulate new knowledge. Given this multiplicity of elements, the assessment of urban climate resilience requires a knowledge co-production process, involving stakeholders from the public and private sectors, civil society and academia (Muñoz-Erickson et al., 2017). However, no integrated frameworks exist to assess the level of urban resilience within cities (c.f. Ribeiro and Gonçalves, 2019; Marana et al., 2019). Several water-oriented frameworks have been developed to assess resilience based on broader integrative approaches.
For instance, the Water Sensitive Cities (WSC) framework integrates the governance, infrastructure and ecosystems dimensions of urban design and resilience under three pillars of action: 1) cities as communities and networks; 2) cities as water catchments; and 3) cities as ecosystem service providers (Brown et al., 2016).
In tackling the challenges of climate change, the crucial role played by midsize cities is acknowledged, but most of the assessment and decision-support tools address the needs of large cities. Such tools are neither easily applicable, nor useful for midsize cities, since they have distinct characteristics (Brown et al., 2012; van der Heijden, 2019). In the context of climate resilience, midsize cities face challenges that are different to large cities including:
- A lack of expertise in dealing with climate challenges in an integrated manner,
- Insufficient human resources to implement a comprehensive climate adaptation strategy,
- Limited benefit from climate-related research programs and funding,
- Less autonomy due to dependency on or limitations imposed by upper governance levels.
(Birkmann et al., 2016; Özerol et al., 2019)
Given their specific challenges, midsize cities need tailor-made tools to support them in making decisions for strengthening climate resilience. This article draws on our experience of facilitating the development and application of such a tool for midsize cities in the North Sea Region (NSR). In order to develop the tool, we utilized the WSC index, which consists of seven goals and 34 indicators (Chesterfield et al., 2016). Since the WSC index was developed and applied mostly in Australian cities, its application in the NSR required adjustments with regard to the availability of water resources and the needs of midsize cities. The partners of CATCH (water sensitive Cities: the Answer To CHallenges of extreme weather events), a project in NSR funded by the Interreg VB programme, have co-produced a self-assessment tool that takes into account the specific needs and characteristics of midsize cities. Therefore, our insights can guide other midsize cities in the NSR and beyond to assess their current status and develop strategies towards climate resilience.
The CATCH project: A midsize-city approach to climate resilience
CATCH is a transnational project implemented within the scope of the Interreg NSR Programme. The main goal of CATCH is to develop and apply an integrative, online decision support tool (DST), which includes a self-assessment as the first of its four components. The DST is tailored to the characteristics and needs of midsize cities and assists them in formulating climate adaptation strategies. For this purpose, a transdisciplinary project team was established by ‘practice’ and ‘knowledge’ partners. The practice partners are five local authorities from Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and five regional authorities from Bel gium, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Whereas we, the knowledge partners, are from two universities (Jade University of Applied Sciences, Germany, and University of Twente, the Netherlands) and a consultancy firm (Royal HaskoningDHV). The practice partners are also implementing pilot climate adaptation measures in seven midsize cities: Herentals (BE), Vejle (DN), Oldenburg (DE), Enschede (NL), Zwolle (NL), Arvika (SE) and Norwich (UK).
Co-production of the self-assessment
For conducting the self-assessment of climate resilience, the CATCH project team followed a knowledge co-production process, involving academic and non-academic participants from the project partners. Within the scope of CATCH, knowledge production implies a constant emphasis on understandability and applicability (Bracken et al., 2015). This requires adjusting the research process to the needs and realities of the practitioners, encouraging them to question the ideas or concepts raised during the project, and following an iterative process in which all partners learn from each other and develop a common understanding.
We applied three methods during the self-assessment process: visits to cities, meetings among partners, and document reviews. Seven partner visits took place between January and September 2018. We visited each city to develop an understanding of its water management approach and climate adaptation practices, to familiarise ourselves with its characteristics and pilot measures in place, and to identify its specific needs with respect to climate resilience. We interviewed 49 participants, including project partners and external stakeholders, and visited the pilot site and other relevant locations in each city. Four meetings were organized between November 2017 and September 2018, involving two to three representatives from each project partner. These meetings aimed to create a collaborative platform to co-produce the self-assessments and review project progress. During each partner meeting at least one session was dedicated to the WSC framework and self-assessment indicators. To enrich and verify the data collected during visits and meetings, we also examined documents, such as policy papers, regulations, and reports from earlier projects.
Indicators of urban climate resilience from the WSC perspective
We used the WSC index as the starting point to tailor the Australian self-assessment indicators to the NSR conditions and developed the set of indicators in three steps:
- Practice partners evaluated the potential indicators in terms of clarity, relevance and data availability. Using these inputs, we narrowed down the list of indicators and prepared a draft scoring scheme, including a description for each indicator and each of its possible scores from 1 to 5.
- Practice partners scored the indicators and provided feedback on the added value of each indicator for their city and/or pilot measure. During the second and third partner meetings, the gaps and issues with regard to the scoring were discussed. Using the inputs from these discussions, we finalized the list and descriptions of the indicators.
- Practice partners finalized their scoring of indicators in consultation with us and presented their scores and final reflections during the fourth partner meeting.
By following these steps, the partners co-created an indicator set that was considered relevant for assessing climate resilience, and they had the necessary data and expertise to assess and adapt the indicators. Table 1 shows the final list of indicators according to the three pillars defined earlier.
Table 1. Self-assessment indicators for midsize cities in the North Sea Region
| WSC pillar |
Code |
Indicator name |
| Cities as communities and networks |
C1.1 |
Organizational capacity for climate adaptation at the city level |
| C1.2 |
Water as a key element in city planning and design/redesign |
| C1.3 |
City-level integrative arrangements across sectors |
| C1.4 |
Stakeholder participation in water and climate adaptation at the city level |
| C1.5 |
Leadership, long-term vision and commitment by the city-level administration |
| C1.6 |
Level of flood risk awareness of the population |
| C1.7 |
Organisation of emergency management |
| C1.8 |
Regulations to reduce potential flood damage in the city |
| Cities as water catchments |
C2.1 |
Availability and use of flood hazard and flood risk maps for areas at risk |
| C2.2 |
Areas to temporally store water in the city without expected damage |
| C2.3 |
Measures to increase infiltration |
| C2.4 |
Status of infrastructure for water supply |
| C2.4.1 |
Maintenance of infrastructure for water supply |
| C2.5 |
Status of infrastructure for wastewater |
| C2.5.1 |
Maintenance of infrastructure for wastewater |
| C2.6 |
Status of infrastructure for flood protection |
| C2.6.1 |
Maintenance of infrastructure for flood protection |
| Cities as ecosystem services providers |
C3.1 |
Attention to the needs and protection of vulnerable groups |
| C3.2 |
Healthy and biodiverse habitat |
| C3.3 |
Protection of surface water quality and flow regime |
| C3.4 |
Protection of groundwater quality and groundwater levels |
| C3.5 |
Activation of connected urban green and blue space |
| C3.6 |
Vegetation coverage at the city level |
We used a scoring scale from 1 to 5, where 1 implied an extremely negative judgment (undesired level), and 5 indicated an extremely positive judgment (desired level). Each score of each indicator was associated with a detailed description, which we finalized after deliberations with practice partners. Whenever quantitative data was available, we also quantified the descriptions. Equal weights were used for all indicators to calculate the average scores for each indicator and pillar. The option of using different weights was also considered, but we concluded that such a weighting would complicate the justification of indicator weights and final scores. Since the scores are not used for comparing the success or performance of cities , the scoring process had a rather instrumental function. This implied that the partner cities utilized the scoring process to diagnose their current status with regard to the climate resilience and to learn from each other’s similarities and differences.
Comparative analysis of self-assessment results
Table 2 presents the overview of the scores for the status of climate resilience. Respecting the preference of the project partners, we anonymized the names of the cities.
Table 2. Overview of the self-assessment scores of CATCH partner cities
| Code |
City A |
City B |
City C |
City D |
City E |
City F |
City G |
Average/indicator |
Average/pillar |
| C1.1 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4.5 |
3 |
3.36 |
3.42 |
| C1.2 |
3 |
4 |
3.5 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
3.21 |
| C1.3 |
3 |
4.5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3.36 |
| C1.4 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4.5 |
3 |
3.50 |
| C1.5 |
3 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
3.14 |
| C1.6 |
5 |
3.5 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3.50 |
| C1.7 |
4 |
2.5 |
3.5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3.86 |
| C1.8 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3.43 |
| C2.1 |
NA |
5 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
4.00 |
3.65 |
| C2.2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
2.86 |
| C2.3 |
3 |
4 |
2.5 |
3 |
3 |
3.5 |
5 |
3.43 |
| C2.4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4.29 |
| C2.4.1 |
4 |
4 |
3.5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4.07 |
| C2.5 |
4 |
4 |
3.5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3.93 |
| C2.5.1 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3.86 |
| C2.6 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3.14 |
| C2.6.1 |
NA |
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3.5 |
5 |
3.25 |
| C3.1 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
2.57 |
2.88 |
| C3.2 |
2 |
NA |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3.5 |
3 |
2.58 |
| C3.3 |
1 |
NA |
1 |
3 |
3 |
4.5 |
3 |
2.58 |
| C3.4 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
3.43 |
| C3.5 |
4 |
2 |
3.5 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3.36 |
| C3.6 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2.5 |
2 |
5 |
2.79 |
Note: 1 = undesired level and 5 = desired level
Comparison of the average scores of the three pillars show that the pillar “cities as catchments” has the highest average score, followed closely by the pillar “cities as communities and networks”, and the pillar “cities as ecosystem service providers” has the lowest average score. We can explain this with regard to each of the three pillars:
Cities as communities and networks: The assessments show positive results in terms of stakeholder involvement. At the same time there are common challenges, for instance integrating climate change adaptation measures and strategies with existing policies in other sectors, such as water, urban planning and health, and making climate change adaptation a priority at the city-level.
Cities as water catchments: The high average score and large range in this pillar indicate that the midsize cities vary in terms of their capacity to manage data, e.g. about floods, droughts and climate change, and the associated water, wastewater and flood protection infrastructure. This result can also be explained by the subjective scoring of indicators, which might be judged differently by different cities. In future applications of the self-assessment, such indicators can be scored using quantitative measures, such as the percentage of water loss due to leakage in the water distribution system.
Cities as ecosystem services providers: The scores in this pillar are lower than the other two pillars, implying a common need to identify and recognize the value of the benefits of climate adaptation measures in cities. The benefits of urban ecosystem services are well-documented. However, cities often face obstacles to placing a value on these benefits, such as the lack of data, methods and expertise; lack of awareness by the decision makers and citizens; low stakeholder engagement; financial constraints; and fragmentation among sectors.
Conclusions and future outlook
Insights that we have gained from this self-assessment study are twofold. Firstly, the local and regional authorities and universities co-produced contextualized knowledge on the climate resilience status of their midsize cities in the region. This knowledge increases the capacity of all partners in terms of both developing an assessment tool that is understood and adopted by its target users, i.e., local governments, and the results of the assessment, which created a baseline for the cities for future improvements. Secondly, the comparison of the resilience scores of the cities creates a nuanced understanding of the similarities and differences between midsize cities in terms of their complex characteristics. The self-assessment process also created an exchange and mutual learning platform for project partners and their stakeholders and increased their awareness of climate resilience. Future applications of the self-assessment tool can incorporate more quantitative data and involve a broader range of stakeholders. Both these improvements require financial and human resources, which are key constraints for midsize cities. Yet they are key to increasing the relevance and applicability of the results of climate resilience assessments.
References
Birkmann, J., Welle, T., Solecki, W., Lwasa, S., Garschagen, M. (2016). Boost resilience of small and mid-sized cities. Nature, 537(7622), 605–608.
Bracken, L.J., Bulkeley, H.A., Whitman, G. (2015). Transdisciplinary research: understanding the stakeholder perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7), 1291-1308.
Brown, A., Dayal, A., Rumbaitis Del Rio, C. (2012). From practice to theory: emerging lessons from Asia for building urban climate change resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 531–556.
Brown, R., Rogers, B., Werbeloff, L. (2016). Moving toward water sensitive cities: A guidance manual for strategists and policy makers. Melbourne, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.
Chesterfield, C., Urich, C., Beck, L., Berge, K., Charette-Castonguay, A., Brown, R., ... Rogers, B. (2016). A Water Sensitive Cities Index - Benchmarking cities in developed and developing countries. In Proceedings of the International Low Impact Development Conference, Beijing, China.
Marana, P., Eden, C., Eriksson, H., Grimes, C., Hernantes, J., Howick, S., ... Pyrko, I. (2019). Towards a resilience management guideline—Cities as a starting point for societal resilience. Sustainable Cities and Society, 48, 101531.
Muñoz-Erickson, T.A., Miller, C.A., Miller, T.R. (2017). How cities think: Knowledge co-production for urban sustainability and resilience. Forests, 8(6), 1–17.
Özerol, G., Bressers, H., Lulofs, K., Bormann, H., Boege, M., Lijzenga, S., Dolman, N. (2019). Identifying the state of the art and scoping needs of midsize cities, Workpackage 3 Final Report. CATCH Project.
Ribeiro, P.J.G., Gonçalves, L. (2019). Urban resilience: A conceptual framework. Sustainable Cities and Society, 101625.
Tyler, S., Moench, M. (2012). A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate and Development, 4(4), 311–326.
van der Heijden, J. (2019). Studying urban climate governance: Where to begin, what to look for, and how to make a meaningful contribution to scholarship and practice. Earth System Governance, 1, 100005.
|
|
IA News
TIAS AGM in Mid-November
The Annual General Meeting of TIAS will take place Weds. Nov. 18 at 9:30 – 11:30 AM Central European Time (09.30 EAT – Nairobi, 04:30 EDT- New York, 16:30 CST Beijing, 19:30 AEDT – Canberra. The elections for the extended executive board, that is the secretary, treasurer and assistant to the executive, will be held together with the Advisory Board. An invitation will be sent to all members together with a request for nominations for the positions to be filled.
Two new reports on Global Environmental Assessments
This fall, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PBL, published two reports addressing global environmental assessments, both having value for future assessments:
PBL, and, before that, RIVM, is one of the few organisations that occasionally publishes a synthesis of the findings of a cohort of global environment assessments. Typically, these overview reports come in two kinds: a synthesis of the findings in substance, assessed for their significance from a particular perspective or an overview of the art of assessment making --- like the TIAS workshops and resulting article from a decade ago
Over the past quarter-century, half a dozen of these reports (both kinds together) have been published. Perhaps more agencies compile such overviews in-house, but do not publish them. If our readers are aware of them tell us about it: info@tias-web.info.
In addition to PBL, the other name appearing in this type of work since the late 1990s is Robert Watson who is now overseeing a synthesis report for UNEP (to which the PBL colleagues are contributing). The Global Assessments Synthesis Report, which is expected to be published in January 2021, is intended to inform decision making at major global inter-governmental meetings in the coming year and beyond.
First Palestinian Territory State of Environment and Outlook Report
In April 2020, the first 'State of Environment and Outlook Report for the occupied Palestinian territory' was published by the UN Environment Programme. Using the DPSIR analytic approach this 200-page comprehensive review of the state and trends of the Palestinian environment addresses among other themes: terrestrial and marine ecosystems, biodiversity, the urban environment, water resources management, air quality, climate change, and disaster risk reduction. The report is based on expert visits to sites in Gaza and the West Bank as well as dozens of Palestinian and Israeli sources and existing literature. The full 'State of Environment’ can be downloaded here.
Upcoming Webcast on reducing pharmaceuticals and microbial resistance
Registration is open for two webcasts on November 17 and 24 in which the excellent work undertaken by young researchers of the MEDUWA-Vecht(e) project will be presented. The event co-hosted by project partners, TIAS, Stichting Huize Aarde and Osnabrueck University will include the following presentations followed by discussions:
Tuesday, 17 November 2020, 13.00-14.30
- Martien Graumans, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, NL:“Oxidative treatment of pharmaceutical residues using thermal plasma activation"
- Mareike Hummert, University Hospital Münster, Insititue for Hygiene, DE: "Efficient inactivation of bacteria through Plasma-activated water"
- Lara Wöhler, University of Twente, Water Management, NL: "Alternative societal solutions to pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment"
Tuesday, 24 November 2020, 13.00-14.30
- Daniel Duarte, Radboud University, Environmental Science, NL: "Human and environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in the Vechte River"
- Gunnar Niebaum, Osnabrück University, Institute of Environmental Systems Research, DE: "Prediction of environmental concentrations of pharmaceuticals in the Vechte River catchment using the GREAT-ER model"
- Volker Lämmchen, Osnabrück University, Institute of Environmental Systems Research, DE: "Modelling of micro-pollutants in a strongly-regulated cross-border, lowland catchment”
Further information including abstracts of presentations and profiles of the presenters as well as registration information can be foundon the MEDUWA project website.
TIAS special session held at Post-Normal Science Symposium
The 5th Post-Normal Science Symposium, "PNS5: Digital journey to PNS 2021 symposium in Florence” was held on September 21 to 25, 2020. The symposium originally planned to be held in Florence was held virtually. The keynote address was provided by Jerry Ravetz, PNS co-developer together with Silvio Funtowicz. All recorded presentations are available on the symposium website.
TIAS and BC3 – the Basque Center of Climate Change held a special session at the PNS Symposium, Addressing ambiguity in participatory processes for sustainable resources management to support Integrated Assessment. The following prerecorded input talks below are available for viewing via this link:
- ‘The (re)democratization of knowledge in participatory processes - The dangers of overlooking ambiguities', Marcela Brugnach (chair), BC3 - Basque Center of Climate Change, the Basque Foundation for Science, Ikerbasque, Spain and The Integrated Assessment Society
- 'Ambiguities in Integrated Assessment - Experiences from stakeholder processes in water-energy-food nexus management', Caroline van Bers and Caroline Lumosi, The Integrated Assessment Society e.V. and Institute of Environmental Systems Research, Osnabrueck University, Germany
- 'Narratives as epistemic tools to work with ambiguity in extended peer communities', Violeta Cabello Villarejo, Institute for Environmental Science and Technologies, Autonomous University of Barcelona, and BC3 - Basque Center of Climate Change, Spain
In the subsequent discussion participants focused on how ambiguity has been and could be more effectively addressed in the context of Integrated Assessment. We are particularly interested in applications that use participatory forms of inquiry (e.g., participatory modelling, decision support systems, etc.) in addressing ambiguity in Integrated Assessment.
A summary of the subsequent discussion and ideas for follow up will the provided in the next TIAS newsletter. In particular there is interest in dealing with the tension between power and learning/ knowledge, for example, enabling the learning process through empowerment and the role of power in resolving legal/policy ambiguity.
iEMSs 2020 conference papers and presentations available
In September the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society held its annual conference online. For those unable to attend the iEMSs 2020 conference in Brussels focused on Environmental Modelling for Sustainability, papers and presentations will soon be available on the conference website. The event was attended by 350 participants from more than 40 countries and included 300 presentations.
the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) has announced that Stefan Reis of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Edinburgh), UK has been elected President of iEMSs. We wish Stefan, who is a longtime active member of TIAS, much success.
Call for papers: Large-scale behavioural models of land use change
The open-access journal, SESMO (Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling), has launched a call for contributions to its thematic issue on large-scale behavioural models of land use change. The expected deadline for the submission of the contribution is the end of June 2021.
Ecosystem Services Partnership joins Global Coalition for Biodiversity
The Ecosystem Services Partnership has joined the Global Coalition for Biodiversity as an official supporter The Coalition’s mission is to raise awareness about the need to protect biodiversity and promote collaborative work on the topic.
A press release can be found here and readers are encouraged to link the announcement on their own websites or they can retweet here.
|
|
|
Recent Publications of TIAS members
Bellaubi, F. Mallarach, J.M. and Sardá, R. 2020. A Geoethical approach to the governance of socioecological systems: The case of the Delta de la Tordera
Bellaubi, F. and Arasa, A., 2020. Geoethics in groundwater management: The geoethical dilemma in La Galera aquifer, Spain. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-125
Jin S, Zhang B, Wu B, Han D, Hu Y, Wei X, Zhang C, Wu Y, Mol APJ, Reis S, Gu B, Chen J 2020. Decoupling livestock and crop production at household level in China. Nature Sustainability.
Morin, J.F. and Orsini, A. eds., 2020. Essential concepts of global environmental governance.The new edition of "Essential Concepts of Global Environmental Governance” has recently been published with a useful glossary with short explanations of major concepts and related debates. synthesizes writing from an internationally diverse range of well-known experts. Each entry defines a central concept in global environmental governance, presenting its historical evolution and related debates, and includes key bibliographical references and further reading. This new edition takes stock of several recent developments in global environmental politics including the adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the launch of the UN Global Pact for the Environment in 2017.
|
|
|
Events
Nov. 18 at 9:30 – 11:30 CET (09:30 EAT – Nairobi, 04:30 EDT- New York, 16:30 CST Beijing, 19:30 AEDT – Canberra). TIAS Annual General Meeting. Invitations will be sent to members shortly.
17 and 24 November, 13.00-14:30 , Webcasts on reducing pharmaceuticals and microbial resistance. Presentation of the tools and approaches of the MEDUWA-Vecht(e) project for reducing medicines and multiresistent and/or pathogenic micro-organisms in water and soil. Co-hosted by project partners, TIAS, Stichting Huize Aarde and Osnabrueck University.
Link to the webcast series and registration
2-4 February, 2021, Global Symposium on Soil Biodiversity (GSOBI20) hosted by FAO in Rome, Italy.
8-12 February 2021 . 8th Africa Water Week. Windhoek, Namibia.
|
|
|
Jobs
Post-Doctoral Researcher – Trade Hub, UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UK, to quantify ecosystem service feedbacks within the GLOBIOM integrated assessment model. Deadline for application: 16 November 2020
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Tufts University, USA – Uncertainty Characterization for the Global Change Intersectoral Modeling System (GCIMS), Applications will be accepted until a suitable candidate is found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
