Difference between revisions of "A2 - Consultation of key stakeholders"
From Sea
m |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<hr> | <hr> | ||
== Description and methods employed (what, how, where and when) == | == Description and methods employed (what, how, where and when) == | ||
| + | ===What=== | ||
| + | The purpose of this action is to prepare the conditions for long-term sustainability of the project. The sustainability to which this action refers is concerned mainly with surrounding factors such as: | ||
| − | + | * assurance of full support of the project by all the stakeholders during the implementation stage; | |
| − | + | * maintenance and possible increase of the quality and quantity of separate collection, in particular as regards bio-waste. | |
| − | * | + | * maintenance of support for the demonstration plant by all the stakeholders even after the termination of support by the LIFE program; |
| − | * | + | * maintenance and possible increase of the demonstrative power of the plant and prototype; |
| − | * | + | * assurance that the demonstration plant takes account of the more significant variables of a general nature, for the repeatability and spread of the solution. |
| − | * | ||
| − | * | ||
| − | + | ===How/Methods=== | |
| − | + | This action starts immediately after drafting the preliminary project, so that the assessments, contributions, opinions and positions of the key stakeholders are based on a concrete plan. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | In order to obtain the necessary results, this action: | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | * will include, in the preparatory stage of the project, a number of direct contacts for consultation | |
| − | + | * with the community served, in particular the citizens and local CSOs (Civil Society Organizations); | |
| + | * with the management of the companies appointed to manage the consortium of coastal towns (the provinces of Massa-Carrara, Lucca, Pisa, Livorno) with a view to gathering further information about the needs, limitations and requisites of the other managing organizations and communities; | ||
| + | * with the managers and experts of the integrated local water supply service (Gaia Spa) and the service companies engaged in the management of sewage sludge. | ||
| − | + | * will involve the creation of an informal work table devoted to examination of the quantitative and qualitative trends of the OF-MSW composition; | |
| + | * this same table will have access to the technical specifications of the preliminary project during its elaboration, for the following purposes: | ||
| − | + | * to contribute to the process through essential monitoring actions of the main variables necessary for correct assessment of the repeatability; | |
| + | * to maintain the demonstrative character of the plant and its evaluative function; | ||
| + | * to prevent locked-in solutions that would prevent future evolution (after the financed stage, for example with regard to digestate fate) | ||
| − | + | Other critical points in general could be | |
| − | + | * contracting for the treatment of OFMSW on a commission basis (which is not a problem for the COWS plant but that could create difficulties for others); | |
| + | * management of the residual sludge (which is reduced in percentage but increased in effective quantity); | ||
| + | * management of the dry fraction leaving the COWS prototype (mechanical separation/ pulping treatment). | ||
| − | + | Sample outlines of contractual agreements and guidelines will be drawn up for all these aspects, so as to ensure sufficient uniformity of the incoming materials and conditions of disposal of the output. | |
| − | Routine tasks are to be carried out by | + | The method employed to ensure the involvement of the stakeholders will consist of sending a formal communication followed by an invitation to participate. |
| − | * Web based collaboration; | + | |
| − | * RSS feeds, Tweets and other social web messaging for keeping all participants informed; | + | A contact list of key actors and stakeholders is drawn up and revised with the contribution of all project partners. The persons addressed should include representatives with decision-making power from their organizations. |
| + | |||
| + | A digital information package will be sent to them, explaining the rationale of COWS and the consultation mechanism. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The first consultations will be consist of interviews with decision-makers and opinion-makers, based on guided outlines, with the results published in a report on the project website. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Subsequently, a consultation forum will be maintained with stakeholder groups, and the outcomes will be summarized periodically and published on the project website, with the invitation to the participants to publish them on their own institutional websites. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In order to maintain constant contact with the CSOs, the organizations will be invited to include the COWS topic in an institutional and programmed manner in the meetings they organize, and to participate in collection of the feedback. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Routine tasks are to be carried out by: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Web based collaboration; | ||
| + | * RSS feeds, Tweets and other social web messaging for keeping all participants informed; | ||
* Maintaining a public calendar of meetings | * Maintaining a public calendar of meetings | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | === Where === | |
| − | + | This action will mainly take place in Viareggio. A few local (regional) trips will be necessary to visit some key stakeholders' sites. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == | + | ===When === |
| − | + | 22/03/2013 - 17/10/2013 | |
| + | == Constraints and assumptions == | ||
| + | Constraints | ||
| + | * Criteria and requirements for extending the potential scope of COWS that jeopardize its overall environmental benefits must be excluded | ||
| + | *Validation and evaluation criteria must explicitly exclude exportation of problems (in terms of responsibility, type, time and geographic scope) | ||
| + | Assumptions | ||
| + | *Landfill costs increase | ||
| + | *The trend of increasing caution about sewage sludge disposal (particularly about spreading in agriculture) does not decrease | ||
| + | *The interest of the stakeholders is high and participation is sufficient to gather the main positions and interests | ||
| − | == | + | == Beneficiary responsible for implementation == |
| − | + | P2-SEAAMB | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | == Expected results == | |
| + | Among main results we can list: | ||
| + | *The positions and indications of the main stakeholders are collected. These include: | ||
| + | ** five municipal waste service utilities; | ||
| + | ** Confservizi CISPEL Toscana (the association of public service companies in Tuscany); | ||
| + | **four provincial administrations; | ||
| + | **ten representative municipalities; | ||
| + | **two managers of integrated water supply services; | ||
| + | **five companies representative of the sewage sludge treatment services; | ||
| + | ** the most representative environmental associations (WWF, Legambiente, Italia Nostra, local committees, and others) | ||
| − | + | * A climate favorable to the project and its development is created | |
| − | == Indicators of progress == | + | *active participation (with written presentations) of a third of the stakeholders involved |
| − | * Schedule and effort variance; | + | |
| − | ** actual vs. planned start/duration of tasks (if lag time reserved for contingency is to be used then remediation actions must be triggered); | + | *A representative picture is gathered of the requisites of transferability of COWS that is delineated in the document on the deliverable D2 Report about COWS sources and destination flows. |
| − | ** actual vs. planned resource use (15% work overload and 5% budget variance are thresholds for triggering remediation actions) | + | |
| − | * Performance | + | The outputs of this action will be used in the final project stage (Action B1) and in the activities of communication (Action D4). |
| + | |||
| + | == Indicators of progress == | ||
| + | * Schedule and effort variance; | ||
| + | ** actual vs. planned start/duration of tasks (if lag time reserved for contingency is to be used then remediation actions must be triggered); | ||
| + | ** actual vs. planned resource use (15% work overload and 5% budget variance are thresholds for triggering remediation actions) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Performance | ||
** Effectiveness in terms of number of qualified participants involved (contributions by 2/3 of targeted decision makers) | ** Effectiveness in terms of number of qualified participants involved (contributions by 2/3 of targeted decision makers) | ||
| − | ** Delivery of compliant outputs: | + | ** Delivery of compliant outputs: D2 Report about COWS sources and destination flows |
** Quality of delivered outputs: completeness and appropriateness (assessed by the project management team and by users, e.g. approval by contributing stakeholders). | ** Quality of delivered outputs: completeness and appropriateness (assessed by the project management team and by users, e.g. approval by contributing stakeholders). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Index:LIFE|Torna all'indice]] | ||
Latest revision as of 09:53, 16 July 2011
Consultation with municipal waste management utilities Elaboration of preliminary agreements for providing of OFMSW Provisional contracting for COWS ouputs D2 - Report about COWS sources and destination flows
Contents
Description and methods employed (what, how, where and when)[edit]
What[edit]
The purpose of this action is to prepare the conditions for long-term sustainability of the project. The sustainability to which this action refers is concerned mainly with surrounding factors such as:
- assurance of full support of the project by all the stakeholders during the implementation stage;
- maintenance and possible increase of the quality and quantity of separate collection, in particular as regards bio-waste.
- maintenance of support for the demonstration plant by all the stakeholders even after the termination of support by the LIFE program;
- maintenance and possible increase of the demonstrative power of the plant and prototype;
- assurance that the demonstration plant takes account of the more significant variables of a general nature, for the repeatability and spread of the solution.
How/Methods[edit]
This action starts immediately after drafting the preliminary project, so that the assessments, contributions, opinions and positions of the key stakeholders are based on a concrete plan.
In order to obtain the necessary results, this action:
- will include, in the preparatory stage of the project, a number of direct contacts for consultation
- with the community served, in particular the citizens and local CSOs (Civil Society Organizations);
- with the management of the companies appointed to manage the consortium of coastal towns (the provinces of Massa-Carrara, Lucca, Pisa, Livorno) with a view to gathering further information about the needs, limitations and requisites of the other managing organizations and communities;
- with the managers and experts of the integrated local water supply service (Gaia Spa) and the service companies engaged in the management of sewage sludge.
- will involve the creation of an informal work table devoted to examination of the quantitative and qualitative trends of the OF-MSW composition;
- this same table will have access to the technical specifications of the preliminary project during its elaboration, for the following purposes:
- to contribute to the process through essential monitoring actions of the main variables necessary for correct assessment of the repeatability;
- to maintain the demonstrative character of the plant and its evaluative function;
- to prevent locked-in solutions that would prevent future evolution (after the financed stage, for example with regard to digestate fate)
Other critical points in general could be
- contracting for the treatment of OFMSW on a commission basis (which is not a problem for the COWS plant but that could create difficulties for others);
- management of the residual sludge (which is reduced in percentage but increased in effective quantity);
- management of the dry fraction leaving the COWS prototype (mechanical separation/ pulping treatment).
Sample outlines of contractual agreements and guidelines will be drawn up for all these aspects, so as to ensure sufficient uniformity of the incoming materials and conditions of disposal of the output.
The method employed to ensure the involvement of the stakeholders will consist of sending a formal communication followed by an invitation to participate.
A contact list of key actors and stakeholders is drawn up and revised with the contribution of all project partners. The persons addressed should include representatives with decision-making power from their organizations.
A digital information package will be sent to them, explaining the rationale of COWS and the consultation mechanism.
The first consultations will be consist of interviews with decision-makers and opinion-makers, based on guided outlines, with the results published in a report on the project website.
Subsequently, a consultation forum will be maintained with stakeholder groups, and the outcomes will be summarized periodically and published on the project website, with the invitation to the participants to publish them on their own institutional websites.
In order to maintain constant contact with the CSOs, the organizations will be invited to include the COWS topic in an institutional and programmed manner in the meetings they organize, and to participate in collection of the feedback.
Routine tasks are to be carried out by:
- Web based collaboration;
- RSS feeds, Tweets and other social web messaging for keeping all participants informed;
- Maintaining a public calendar of meetings
Where[edit]
This action will mainly take place in Viareggio. A few local (regional) trips will be necessary to visit some key stakeholders' sites.
When[edit]
22/03/2013 - 17/10/2013
Constraints and assumptions[edit]
Constraints
- Criteria and requirements for extending the potential scope of COWS that jeopardize its overall environmental benefits must be excluded
- Validation and evaluation criteria must explicitly exclude exportation of problems (in terms of responsibility, type, time and geographic scope)
Assumptions
- Landfill costs increase
- The trend of increasing caution about sewage sludge disposal (particularly about spreading in agriculture) does not decrease
- The interest of the stakeholders is high and participation is sufficient to gather the main positions and interests
Beneficiary responsible for implementation[edit]
P2-SEAAMB
Expected results[edit]
Among main results we can list:
- The positions and indications of the main stakeholders are collected. These include:
- five municipal waste service utilities;
- Confservizi CISPEL Toscana (the association of public service companies in Tuscany);
- four provincial administrations;
- ten representative municipalities;
- two managers of integrated water supply services;
- five companies representative of the sewage sludge treatment services;
- the most representative environmental associations (WWF, Legambiente, Italia Nostra, local committees, and others)
- A climate favorable to the project and its development is created
- active participation (with written presentations) of a third of the stakeholders involved
- A representative picture is gathered of the requisites of transferability of COWS that is delineated in the document on the deliverable D2 Report about COWS sources and destination flows.
The outputs of this action will be used in the final project stage (Action B1) and in the activities of communication (Action D4).
Indicators of progress[edit]
- Schedule and effort variance;
- actual vs. planned start/duration of tasks (if lag time reserved for contingency is to be used then remediation actions must be triggered);
- actual vs. planned resource use (15% work overload and 5% budget variance are thresholds for triggering remediation actions)
- Performance
- Effectiveness in terms of number of qualified participants involved (contributions by 2/3 of targeted decision makers)
- Delivery of compliant outputs: D2 Report about COWS sources and destination flows
- Quality of delivered outputs: completeness and appropriateness (assessed by the project management team and by users, e.g. approval by contributing stakeholders).
