Selecting strategies

Stakeholder Workshop 2: Guidelines

2008-07-16T14:21:22Z

These guidelines were a working instrument for use in conducting and moderating the DESIRE WB3 Stakeholder Workshop 2. The methodology was developed by the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE). It is based on experiences from the "Learning for sustainability (L4S)" (link expired) methodology and the WOCAT methodology.

1. Guidelines for Stakeholder Workshop 2: Selection and decision on prevention and mitigation strategies to be implemented

Content:

Introduction to the workshop guidelines
Overview on the programme of Stakeholder Workshop
Preparatory work of the moderator(s) prior to the workshop

The workshop - steps

Introduction to the workshop
Step 1: Review and adjustment of objectives
Step 2: Identification of options
Step 3: Identification of relevant criteria for evaluation
Step 4: Scoring the options
Step 5: Creating a hierarchy and ranking criteria
Step 6: Analysis and interpretation
Step 7: Prioritising of options - negotiation and decision making
Step 8: Embedding into the overall strategy
Evaluation and closure of the workshop

Annex 1: Report Format

2. Workshop support material

A variety of additional material (Facilitator software, database) is provided to support the workshops and the exercises. These are an essential to the workshop.

More details ... download the full Guidelines, Facilitator software and database
	WP3.3 Stakeholder Workshop 2: Guidelines [1.86 MB]
	WP3.3 Stakeholder Workshop 2: Facilitator software [3.65 MB] If Java is not available on your computer you should also download WP3.3 Java runtime environment for Facilitator software [14.27 MB]
	WOCAT database online

Stakeholder Workshop 2: Training session

2008-07-15T14:54:11Z

Bari, Italy, 31 March - 3 April 2008

Summary

The training workshop was attended by 25 participants from 13 countries. 12 study sites from Spain, Portugal, Italy, Turkey, Russia, Cape Verde, Morocco, Tunisia, Botswana and Chile were represented, as well as other working blocks and NGOs.

Day 1 The main focus was on the review of the achievements made by the study sites regarding WP3.1 and WP3.2 (the first two steps of the methodology). Each study site presented a poster with the main results from their first stakeholder workshop and a progress bar regarding the documentation and evaluation of promising mitigation strategies. Thereafter, WP3.3 was introduced and the concept of the second stakeholder workshop presented. The participants received the guidelines and software and with the help of this material, the training allowed to conduct practical exercises with a high learning effect. All methodological steps were conducted in small groups, each focusing on one selected objective of one study site. Participants also got the chance to act as moderators and stakeholders during certain steps.
Day 2 focused on the selection and definition of mitigation options based on a search in the WOCAT database, and the identification of criteria to score these options. The actual scoring was then done with the help of option cards placed on a scoring tool.
Day 3 was dedicated to the use of the decision support tool, the analysis of the results and the final negotiation over which option to select for test implementation. Some time was also used to update the planning matrix of Research Theme 3 activities for each study site, to reflect the role of the study site team, and to have a look at the next working block engaged in implementation and monitoring.
On Day 4, working block leaders and DESIRE coordinators joined the group for the excursion to the Rendina Basin, the Italian study site.

The training was well received by the participants. Everybody participated very actively and the outstanding group spirit from the Murcia training could be continued.

More details ... download the full report
	WP3.3 Training Session Report [4.69 MB]

Decision support tool for strategy selection

2007-07-17T12:11:10Z

Authors: Gudrun Schwilch, Felicitas Bachmann and Hanspeter Liniger

Introduction

A newly developed comparative selection and decision support tool has been developed for application during Stakeholder Workshop 2. It allows better assessment and negotiation of remediation strategies and support of the negotiation process concerning the best option(s) for a given human and natural environment. The workshop participants conduct a multi-criteria evaluation to rank existing and potential remediation strategies for field trials. This involves stakeholders identifying and weighing relevant criteria (for example, technical requirements, costs and benefits of implementation, social acceptability, etc.), taking into account the technical, bio-physical, socio-cultural, economic and institutional dimensions.

Description of Decision Support Tool
The methodology applied consists of three main elements:

The WOCAT database to choose the options or strategies of land conservation.
A Decision Support System software supporting the single steps of the evaluation and decision-making process.
A participatory approach guiding and leading workshop participants through the process of evaluation and decision-making.

The newly developed Decision Support Tool is the combination of these three elements and not just the DSS software itself.


Selection of options is based on a search in the WOCAT database, leading through a series of key questions.	Setting criteria, scoring, and the decision making process are supported by software for multi-objective decision support.	Both tools are embedded into a stakeholder workshop, continuing the "learning for sustainability" approach.

The objectives are:

To select possible implementation options from a vast basket of options;
To compare, score and rank these options;
To negotiate the best option for implementation;
To decide upon 1-2 strategies for test implementation.

Overview of steps to reach decision
Step 1: Review and adjustment of objectives
Step 2: Identification of options (from WOCAT database)
Step 3: Identification of relevant criteria for evaluation
Step 4: Scoring the options
Step 5: Creating a hierarchy and ranking criteria
Step 6: Analysis and interpretation (with Facilitator software)
Step 7: Prioritising of options - negotiation and decision making
Step 8: Embedding into the overall strategy

Selection of options in WOCAT database

The selection of options is partly done by the research team before the stakeholder workshop starts. They need to prepare the first selection step ahead, as this is too complex to be done during the workshop. It entails going through a series of key questions and using a predefined "search-by-criteria" form to find the most suitable technologies and approaches from the WOCAT databases. The database contains SLM practices from all over the world as well as those local and potential practices identified and documented in part II. The key questions allow for narrowing down the selection regarding climate, land use and other crucial issues. After coming up with a manageable number of solutions (i.e. about 5-10), the specialists have to prepare posters and cards illustrating these solutions, based on a predefined format and an automatic retrieval of the data, but possibly with a necessary translation and adaptations to the local context (i.e. what would this measure cost in their situation).

Use of a Decision Support System software
An open-source software called "facilitator" (Heilman et. al. 2002) is used to support the process. Some adaptation and debugging was made by CDE within DESIRE.

This Multi Objective Decision Support System (MODSS) software uses decision rules, a hierarchical system for ranking criteria, score functions and linear programming to identify a preferred management option consistent with the ranking of the decision criteria. Assigning an importance order to the decision criteria overcomes in part the need to assign individual weights. The matrix framework of management options and decision criteria is generic and open, encouraging participation by all stakeholders and can accommodate measured data, simulation model results and expert opinions in the decision making process. The results are displayed as horizontal bars with best and worst composite scores; the length of the bars representing the sensitivity of the resource management option to the individual ordering of the criteria. This software is written entirely in platform independent Java and is open source.

The software is used within the stakeholder workshop, but many steps are done on paper and without a computer. Depending on the (computer) literacy level of the participants, more or fewer steps can be done by computer. Ideally, an assistant or the second moderator is feeding the data from each step (results from work done in the different steps) to the Facilitator software. Only the calculations for the analysis of the assessment really need to be made by computer.

Embedding in stakeholder workshop
The stakeholders are the same as in stakeholder workshop 1 (Part I) and the moderators and SLM specialists again have practical guidelines at hand to plan and conduct the process. The workshop guidelines consist of didactic guidelines, which formulate learning objectives, and describe a step by step procedure for leading the participants through the decision-making process; thematic sheets, which provide theoretical and conceptual orientation on specific topics or steps; and instruction sheets on the use of the software.

The 2-day workshop follows up on what has been discussed in Workshop 1, including recently acquired knowledge from the documentation and evaluation process (Part II). This results in confirming or reformulating the main objectives of an SLM strategy. The moderators will then present the pre-selected possible strategy options to the participants with the help of the posters, and a plenary discussion will allow confirmation of their selection or a search for more options in the database. In a brainstorming session, the stakeholders identify criteria which reflect the most important qualities of the strategy options (e.g. costs, social acceptability, ecological effectiveness, etc.). During a game-like exercise, using the previously prepared cards, the stakeholders are asked to score all options against all criteria. They look at one criterion at a time and score all options against this criterion. The criteria are then organized into three groups, "environmental", "economic" and "social", and ranked within these groups according to their importance. This assigns relative weight to the criteria. Analysis of this scoring and weighting process results in graphs that illustrate the relative merits of the various options. The process is iterative, i.e. criteria, options, scores and rankings may be revised several times until participants are happy with the outcome. Finally, the options have to be negotiated. Options which score high socially, economically and environmentally are most probably the best options. The workshop moderators lead the discussion in such a way that a final agreement can be reached on which solution(s) should be selected for implementation. Commitment is sought from all the stakeholders concerned in how they can support the implementation process.

Conclusions
The development of this methodology mainly consisted of bringing together a number of existing tools and methods and integrating them into a coherent and comprehensive selection and decision process. This process can be applied in many local contexts, all aiming at sustainable land management, be it affected by desertification or any other form of land degradation. The tool, with its three elements, is being applied at 15 DESIRE study sites. It will also be used by various WOCAT initiatives in different countries and their experiences will show its suitability and usefulness. Further testing and application in any desertification-prone area around the world would surely be welcome.

Reference cited regarding Facilitator software:
Heilman, P., Davis, G., Lawrence, P., Hatfield, J.L. and Huddleston, J., 2002. The Facilitator - An Open Source Effort to Support Multiobjective Decision Making. 1st Biennial Meeting: "Integrated Assessment and Decision Support". The International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs), Lugano, Switzerland, pp. 253-258.

More details ... download the full report and materials needed to use the decision support tool

WP3.3 A decision support tool for strategy assessment [1.82 MB]

WP3.3 Stakeholder Workshop 2: Facilitator software [3.65 MB]

If Java is not available on your computer you should also download

WP3.3 Java runtime environment for Facilitator software [14.27 MB]

WOCAT database online

Ready-to-implement measures for each study site

2009-06-15T17:14:48Z

The selected measures presented here are the final result of the second stakeholder workshops. The detailed reports of these workshops and a synthesis will be provided in »Stakeholder Workshop 2: Synthesis report.

The list of measures includes the names, some specifications (if available), the type (agronomic, vegetative, structural, management or a combination thereof) and the land use type on which the measure will be applied.

Further details of implementation and monitoring can be found in the »Field experiments: design and implementation.

List of measures selected

Study site	Measures	Specifications	Type	Land use
Spain, Guadalentín Basin	Reduced tillage of dryland cereals	With disc-plough	agronomic	cropland
	Green manure in ecological agriculture of almonds	Seeding mixture of cereals and Vicia sativa	agronomic	cropland
	Reduced tillage in ecological agriculture of almonds	2 tillages instead of 3-5 per year	agronomic	cropland
	Traditional water harvesting	Earthen wall to divert water from a river bed	structural	cropland
	Organic straw mulch under almonds	to prevent losses by evapotranspiration	agronomic	cropland
Portugal, Maçao and Góis	Preventive forestry	Including strategic management of fuel strips	management	forest land
Portugal, Maçao and Góis	Prescribed fire		management	forest land
Italy, Rendina Basin, Basilicata		No specific implementation. Monitoring of whole Rendina Basin and few existing measures, such as minimum tillage and green cover.
Greece, Crete	No tillage		agronomic	cropland
Greece, Crete	Sustainable grazing		management	grazing land
Greece, Nestos Basin, Maggana	Transport of freshwater from local streams	Instead of saline groundwater	management	cropland
Turkey, Konya Karapinar Plain	Caragana korschinskii planting	In rows perpendicular to dominant wind direction, i.e. E-W. This technology normally embraces fencing and later rotational grazing.	vegetative, management	grazing land
Turkey, Konya Karapinar Plain	No tillage		agronomic	(irrigated) cropland
Turkey, Eskisehir Plain	Sloping terraces with vegetated borders		structural, vegetative	cropland
Turkey, Eskisehir Plain	Caragana korschinskii planting	Contour parallel planting of this or another shrub specie of similar properties	vegetative, management	grazing land
Morocco, Mamora / Sehoul	Vegetative strips		vegetative	cropland
	Mulching combined with crop rotation	Rotation of cereals with fodder crops and legumes	agronomic	cropland
	Gully treatment	Treatment with trees / bushes and maybe structural measures, combined with (temporal) area closure	vegetative, structural, management	grazing land
Tunisia, Zeuss-Koutine	Jessour	Runoff water harvesting technique	structural	cropland
	Gabion check dam	Flood water harvesting	structural	cropland
	Rangeland resting	Enclosure	management	grazing land
Russia, Djanybek	Drip irrigation		structural, management	cropland
Russia, Novyi, Saratov	Drip irrigation		structural, management	cropland
China, Yan River Basin	Level bench terrace		structural	cropland
China, Yan River Basin	Reforestation
Botswana, Mopipi, Boteti Area	Biogas	To conserve woody vegetation	management	grazing land
Mexico, Cointzio Catchment		no information
Chile, Secano Interior	Zero tillage	Including crop rotation	agronomic	cropland
Cape Verde, Ribeira Seca Watershed	Forestation according to the climate for each zone of the study site
Cape Verde, Ribeira Seca Watershed	Green belts on slopes	Combination between Aloe vera and Cajanus cajan or Leucaena leucocephala	vegetative	cropland

More details ... download the full report
	WP3.3 Ready-to-implement measures for each study site [0.24 MB]

Stakeholder Workshop 2: Synthesis report

2009-06-15T17:38:39Z

This report

provides results from the single steps of the assessment and decision-making process in the study sites;
identifies strengths and weaknesses of the methodology as well as challenges in its use.

In general, the feedback on the workshop methodology was positive. However, in some sites it was found too difficult to use it when working with participants with a low educational level.

The methodology was found challenging because of the following.

Adaptation of options from other contexts: working with external options (from WOCAT DB) requires a good understanding of SLM principles and appropriate experience to properly adapt them to the local context.
Decision support software: moderators must be clear about the potential and limitations of the Facilitator software to avoid false expectations and mistrust.
Complexity of methodology: the consecutive steps which build on each other and the complexity of the methodology render its implementation challenging for all involved partners.
Integration of the three components of the stakeholder workshop methodology: to make sure that the parts fit together some continuity is required from Workshop 1 to Workshop 2 regarding: composition of stakeholders that participate; SLM objectives focused on; selected options.

Strengths of the methodology

Weaknesses of the methodology

Well structured. Methodology leads step-by-step through a clearly structured decision-making process.
Facilitator software. Runs complex calculations which would be difficult to do manually; graphs allow visual comparison.
Mutual understanding. Negotiation requires that different points of view are listened to and discussed. This encourages changes in perspectives and mind sets, and enhances respecting and understanding different stakeholders’ perceptions.
Commitment of stakeholders. Seeking commitment for implementation process was possible due to: exchange of ideas and experience; trust; interaction and collaboration among different stakeholder groups. This process started in Workshop 1 and continued to Workshop 2:

Rigidity of the procedure. Steps cannot be skipped without hampering the result.
Software bugs. Facilitator is not as easy-to-use as expected; it still has bugs.
Lack of embedding in a broader SLM strategy. Short workshop duration impedes in-depth discussion to define a broader SLM strategy, which would allow to embed the selected technologies in a broader context and perspective, taking into account relevant socio-economic, institutional and policy issues.
Limited knowledge exchange between study sites. Conservative attitudes towards previously unknown technologies and the fact that options from other contexts only enter the process in the Workshop 2 (after local options have been discussed a lot in the Workshop 1) bear the risk that these ‘new’ options are ‘overlooked’ and not considered enough.

More details ... read on-line or download the full report
	Synthesis of all Stakeholder Workshops 2
	Synthesis of all Stakeholder Workshops 2