Cn 3 wed13_cde_feedback_on_wb3_sessions_schwlich

Cn 3 wed13_cde_feedback_on_wb3_sessions_schwlich

• 1.
  Feedback on WB3 studysite talks Xi’an, 13.10.2010 Gudrun Schwilch and Hanspeter Liniger, CDE
• 2.
  Status WB3 • Majoractivities completed To do: • Revision of documented technologies and approaches based on feedback by WB3 -> Deadline: Feb 2011 (earlier if possible) • Further evaluation of WB3 methodology • Site visit of Spanish Team (2010)
• 3.
  15 study sites-> •42 SLM technologies •20 SLM approaches All reviewed by an international team of experts (updates on-going) •On-line QT database ready now (data currently being transferred) •Some sites enter their improved Ts directly Results WB3.2
• 4.
  • Valuable newcontribution from the Mediterranean and drylands to the global database! • Information often not concise enough to be understood by a global readership • Difficulty to quantify costs and benefits
• 5.
  • 15 agronomic •9 vegetative • 20 structural • 14 management • (thereof 16 in combinations) 0 5 10 15 20 25 agronomic vegetative structural management thereof combinations Typeofmeasure No of technologies Characterization of technologies 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 cropland grazing land forest mixed land other land Landusetype No of technologies 67% on cropland 10% on grazing land 7 % on forest land 14% on mixed land 2% on other land
• 6.
  Outlook • Compilation ofDESIRE case studies in book (see TerrAfrica Guidelines, ‘where the land is greener’, China Overview book)? • Together with some analysis? E.g. what are key elements of SLM in drylands? • Most study sites responded positive, but: -> good quality data needed -> additional financial input needed
• 7.
  Updates QT/QA Spain Dec 10? PortugalJan 11 Italy Done Crete ? Nestos ? Turkey Nov 10 Morocco 15 Dec 10 (+ Atriplex new) Tunisia Jan 11 Russia 15 Dec (1st), Feb 11 (final) China Feb 11 + new QA Botswana Jan 11 Mexico Nov 11 (new) Chile Feb 11 Cape Verde Dec 11 Priority on those technologies which are actually implemented (not potential ones)
• 8.
  Results WB3.3 WB3 synthesison 2nd WS • Finalized in Feb 2010 • Final version available on website / HIS (?)
• 9.
  Criteria selection • Cropyield increase: 11 x • Increase farm income: 8 x • Costs of implementation / expenses of inputs: 8 x • Product / activities diversification: 6 x • Fodder / animal production increase: 6 x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - • Soil erosion decrease / prevention: 14 x • Increase water availability / quantity: 8 x • Plant diversity / biodiversity increase: 6 x • Increase organic matter content of soil: 6 x • Other water related (groundwater, river / pond rehabilitation, etc.): 5 x • Decrease salinity / reduce risk of soil salinization: 5 x • Soil cover increase: only 3 x! • Reduce evaporation: only 2 x • Drought resistance: only 1 x! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - • promotion of association, neighbourhood solidarity, community institutional strengthening: 7 x • food security increase: 6 x • capacity building / increase knowledge of conservation / erosion: 6 x • Increase employment opportunities: 4 x under socio-cultural, plus 3 x under economic Economic Ecological Socio-cultural
• 10.
  Scoring process • Mostlydone in 2 groups (farmers vs others) • Scoring range: • Scoring methodology: rare use of visual scoring ladder, often directly with overall matrix • Consensus finding: a) Continuation in separate groups (Russia, Tunisia) b) Averaging (Spain, Turkey, China) -> differences often not made transparent a) Discussing and compromising (Portugal, Crete, Morocco, Botswana, Chile, Cape Verde) Range Sites 1 to 5 6 1 to 7 4 1 to 10 3
• 11.
  Use of Facilitatorsoftware • 3 study sites did not use the software (mostly time constraints) • Some sites adapted the graphs to be better understood (e.g. Spain) • Some study site struggled with the software • Finally, all applied it successfully It took several attempts to finally realise success, and display results for participants to review. It needs to be stated however, that once we got the tool right, it came across as powerful and fascinating for the participants, as for the most part it confirmed their scoring. (Botswana)
• 12.
  Overall decision-making process Study site Processobservations Decision (compared to analysis) Overall impression Spain - Well structured process - Initially open to new options from WOCAT, later focus on own options - Scoring done with visual option cards - Stakeholders mistrust Facilitator software Reasonable, although stakeholders would prefer all options. Reorganisation of best options according to 2 main land use types. Methodology well used with some minor changes within the scope of flexibility of the methodology. Surprising is the high mistrust of stakeholders in Facilitator software. Portugal - well structured process - work with option posters and visual cards - work with scoring ladder - proper scoring negotiation and ranking Reasonable decision, although discussion was difficult as there was no clear winner from the analysis Very good application of methodology, almost perfect Greece – Crete - unclear scoring process (in groups or individually?) - unclear analysis during WS Drip irrigation scored above no tillage due to only one socio-cultural criterion. Decision for no tillage therefore remains unclear and not based on evidence. Methodology probably not conducted carefully enough and in a rather mechanical style. Turkey – Karapinar - 2 objectives maintained throughout - Restricted criteria selection Decision reasonable, based on good analysis Major effort to apply methodology and use Facilitator software, although probably rather mechanically Morocco - High focus on presentation and discussion of assessed options - Lower focus on selection and decision process Decision mainly left to study site team to suggest and select the most feasible option(s) for test implementation Engaged process, but not fully following the suggested methodology Tunisia - Well conducted analysis of 3 transect group results - Extensive scoring matrices First option reasonable, but second option re-prioritized without clear reason. A second workshop held for final re-prioritization and decision, although not fully clear why. Quite well conduction of method, although scoring not fully taken into account for decision. Many options planned for implementation Russia – Djanybek - Extensive scoring matrices Decision mostly reasonable, although different prioritization for two villages Quite well conducted following the guidelines. Almost identical process in both Russian study sites. Russia – Novy - Maintaining two objectives throughout - Extensive scoring matrices - Unequal group size Reasonable decision Quite well conducted following the guidelines. Almost identical process in both Russian study sites. ….. (etc)
• 13.
  Synthesis on 2ndstakeholder WS Strengths (of methodology) • Well structured: step by step • Mutual understanding through negotiation • Facilitator software: calculation and visual comparison • Commitment of stakeholders: continuation from 1st workshop Weaknesses • Rigidity • Software bugs • Lack of embedding in broader SLM strategy taking into account relevant socio- economic, institutional and policy issues • Limited knowledge exchange between study sites (conservative attitudes towards new technologies, only appearing in 2nd WS)
• 14.
  • interviews withstudy site teams at DESIRE plenary meeting Oct 09 • written responses to small evaluation questionnaire • -> further input welcome (Spain, China, Botswana, Chile) • Extensive semi-structured stakeholder interviews con- ducted in Portugal (5) and Morocco (10) • -> still to be analysed • Continuation within PhD Gudrun Schwilch and INVOLVED project (Joris de Vente, Mark Reed, Lindsay Stringer) Evaluation of WB3 methodology
• 15.
  Some stakeholder statements •I liked it because it is simple, step by step. It was also fun. • I liked most: visualization of techniques and importance in ecological, economic and socio-cultural terms. Normally we do not think in these 3 dimensions. Good way to get decision. • The work with the photos and the way of scoring made the participants talking, but the presence of scientific people has intimidated the farmers, made it difficult for them to express • Researcher: Some things only come out when working with the local stakeholders, which otherwise we would not consider • Farmer: the atmosphere was relaxed. There were no conflicts, mainly because there was nothing to distribute (material). • Everybody has learnt something from the others, it is mutual. • Farmer: I learnt that it is better to take a decision with a group, because many ideas get together which one alone would forget.