cn 3 wed13_cde_feedback_on_wb3_sessions_schwlich
TRANSCRIPT
Feedback on WB3
study site talks
Xi’an, 13.10.2010
Gudrun Schwilch and Hanspeter Liniger, CDE
Status WB3
• Major activities 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)
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
• Valuable new contribution 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
• 15 agronomic• 9 vegetative• 20 structural• 14 management• (thereof 16 in
combinations)
0 5 10 15 20 25
agronomic
vegetative
structural
management
thereof combinations
Typ
e o
f me
asur
e
No of technologies
Characterization of technologies
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
cropland
grazing land
forest
mixed land
other land
Land
use
type
No of technologies
67% on cropland10% on grazing land7 % on forest land14% on mixed land 2% on other land
Outlook• Compilation of DESIRE 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
Updates QT/QA
Spain Dec 10?
Portugal Jan 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)
Results WB3.3
WB3 synthesis on 2nd WS
• Finalized in Feb 2010• Final version available on
website / HIS (?)
Criteria selection• Crop yield 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• Migration reduction / fixing population and stop farming exodus: 5 x
Economic
Ecological
Socio-cultural
Scoring process• Mostly done 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
Use of Facilitator software• 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)
Overall decision-making processStudy site
Process observations 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)
Synthesis on 2nd stakeholder WSStrengths (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)
• interviews with study 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
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.