1. Feedback on WB3
study site talks
Xi’an, 13.10.2010
Gudrun Schwilch and Hanspeter Liniger, CDE

2. 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)

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 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

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 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

7. 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)

8. Results WB3.3
WB3 synthesis on 2nd WS
• Finalized in Feb 2010
• Final version available on
website / HIS (?)

9. 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
Economic
Ecological
Socio-cultural

10. 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

11. 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)

12. Overall decision-making process
Study
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)

13. Synthesis on 2nd stakeholder 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 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

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.