Report on the First Cross-WP Project Workshop and WP5 case study plans for Nov 2013 to Oct 2014: Deliverable D5.1 / WP5

This report is structured in two sections: (i) report of the first Cross-WP OpenNESS workshop October 21-24 2013 Loch Leven, Kinross, Scotland, and (ii) the 27 individual case study reports and work plans informing on purpose, stakeholder involvement and plan for the next 12 months (November 2013 – October 2014) prefaced by a summary of all 27 case studies.
The aim of the workshop was to match the problems identified in the place-based case studies (WP5) with the tools, methodologies and conceptual frameworks provided by WP1-4. The workshop was a great success with over 90 people attending. There were representatives from all work packages and from all case studies (except one).
The interactive workshop program fostered direct exchange between case study and work package representatives in order to identify the potential tools and methodologies to be tested in the case studies.
In a next step, the case study representatives were asked to describe the current status of their cases and to formulate a work plan for the next 12 months following a standard reporting and planning format. These work plans are all included in this report, but it has to be acknowledged that these plans are snapshots which are likely to evolve based on further investigation of data sources and interaction with the case study advisory boards (CAB).
From the case study work plans, we can conclude that all the case studies are indeed actual examples where ecosystem services and natural capital concepts (ES&NC) are tested under real-life conditions. To test the relevance of the concepts and tools, all the cases have a type of discussion forum with stakeholders to discuss the issues at stake, the methods to be used, and the results of the research. However, these so-called ‘Case study Advisory Boards’ (or CABs) take different forms and shapes, depending on the issue, the socio-cultural and political context, and the past cooperation between researchers and practitioners.
The most important reasons reported for the use of the ES&NC concepts and tools were that it is expected to be innovative for integrating nature in planning; that it is a more holistic and dynamic approach than traditional concepts; that it is innovative for identifying community benefits; and that it will make ignored or undervalued ES explicit in planning.
This report is multi-authored with case study leaders and work package leaders contributing material from their own perspectives. These contributions were included in their original form, as standardisation would result in a loss of the full energy and diversity of the OpenNESS consortium. This report is very large (over 250 pages), but material has not been placed in appendices as it is judged that all material is considered equal.