5. Regional strategies

Main contributors to "Regional remediation strategies"

2012-12-03T11:44:49Z

»University of Leeds (UK)	Mark Reed, Mike Kirkby, Brian Irvine, Luuk Fleskens, Doan Nainggolan, Lindsay Stringer
»Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (BE)	Jean Poesen, Matthias Vanmaercke, Willem Maetens
»Research Institute for Hydrogeological Protection (IT)	Lorenzo Borselli, Pilar Salvador Sanchis, Devis Bartolini, Paola Cassi, Piernicola Lollino

... and all the study site teams

»Estación Experimental de Zonas Áridas (ES)	»Universidade de Aveiro (PT)
»Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra (PT)	»University of Wales Swansea
»Agricultural University of Athens (GR)	»Democritus University of Thrace (GR)
»Eskişehir Osmangazi University (TR)	»UNESCO-GN Chair, University Mohammed V-Agdal, Rabat (MA)
»Institut des Régions Arides (TN)	»Moscow State University of Environmental Engineering (RU)
»Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)	»University of Botswana (BW)
»Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (FR)	»Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (CL)
»Instituto Nacional de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Agrário (CV)

Contact the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven team

2012-12-03T11:00:33Z

Institute full name:	Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Onderzoeksgroep Fysische en Regionale Geografie
Institute acronym:	KU Leuven
Institute profile:	The Physical and Regional Geography Research Group, KU Leuven, has a strong expertise in the fields of soil erosion assessment at various spatial and temporal scales (from the experimental plot to the river basin) using laboratory experiments, field techniques and spatial modeling, but also in desertification processes, soil and water conservation. An important research topic of the last decade has been the impact of land use change on water and sediment fluxes at a range of spatial scales. The group has extensive working and research experience in Mediterranean, semi-arid and tropical environments through research projects in the European Mediterranean, the Middle East, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Ecuador, Vietnam and China. The group brings important expertise to the project with respect to the monitoring and modeling of land degradation, soil and water conservation techniques.
Website	http://ees.kuleuven.be/geography/index.html
Address	Division of Geography KU Leuven Celestijnenlaan 200E B-3001 Heverlee Belgium Fax: +32/16/32.29.80
Institute logo
Institute image

Involved personnel

Name	Contact details	Key qualifications	Photo
Prof. Dr. Jean Poesen	Tel: +32 16326425 E-mail: jean.poesen@ees.kuleuven.be	Physical geographer; specialist in soil erosion, hillslope hydrology, desertification, soil erosion control as well as soil and water conservation practices.
Dr Matthias Vanmaercke	Tel: +32 16 326420 E-mail: matthias.vanmaercke@ees.kuleuven.be	Physical Geographer; Specialist in monitoring and modelling of sediment export of river basins; at various spatial scales.
Willem Maetens MSc	Email: willem.maetens@ees.kuleuven.be	Bio. Eng. Specialist in the analysis of meta-data related to soil and water conservation

The Physical and Regional Geography Research Group, KU Leuven, has a strong expertise in the fields of soil erosion assessment at various spatial and temporal scales (from the experimental plot to the river basin) using laboratory experiments, field techniques and spatial modeling, but also in desertification processes, soil and water conservation. An important research topic of the last decade has been the impact of land use change on water and sediment fluxes at a range of spatial scales. The group has extensive working and research experience in Mediterranean, semi-arid and tropical environments through research projects in the European Mediterranean, the Middle East, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Ecuador, Vietnam and China. The group brings important expertise to the project with respect to the monitoring and modeling of land degradation, soil and water conservation techniques.

Contact the University of Leeds team

2012-12-03T10:04:19Z

Institute full name:	University of Leeds
Institute acronym:	Leeds
Institute profile:	The University of Leeds has expertise in integrated modeling, coupling agent-based, regional economic, hydrological, nutrient flow, erosion and biodiversity models at a landscape scale. Environmental Science in Leeds is a recognised centre of research excellence, as the second largest recipient of the Government’s Natural Environment Research Council blue skies funding. The University’s Sustainability Research Institute is a centre of excellence for participatory research, conducting interdisciplinary environmental analysis for sustainable land management, and the River Basin Processes and Management research group in the School of GeographyLeedsEurope and Africa through a series of EU-funded projects (e.g. MEDALUS, DESERTLINKS, PESERA) and other bodies (e.g. UNDP/GEF, Royal Society, UK Government Research Councils). The team conducts strategic and applied research that connects environmental knowledge to public and private sector decision making at local, regional, national and international levels. regularly publishes in top journals including Nature and Science.
Website	www.leeds.ac.uk
Address	University of Leeds Woodhouse Lane Leeds LS2 9JT United Kingdom Fax: +44 113 3436716
Institute logo
Institute image

Involved personnel

Name	Contact details	Key qualifications	Photo
Dr Mark Reed	Tel: +44 113 3433316 E-mail: Mark.Reed@bcu.ac.uk	Interdisciplinary research on participatory conservation, focusing on land degradation, sustainability indicators and participatory processes.
Prof Mike Kirkby	Tel: +44 113 3433310 Fax: +44 113 34 33308 E-mail: m.j.kirkby@leeds.ac.uk	Physical geographer specialising in modeling landscape processes including: hillslope sediment transport processesm, hillslope and network hydrology; and landscape and regional scale models.
Dr Brian Irvine	Email: B.J.Irvine@leeds.ac.uk
Dr Luuk Fleskens	Email: L.Fleskens@leeds.ac.uk	Luuk’s research focuses on developing integrated models and methodologies capable of assessing the impact of environmental change as well as evaluating the effects of adaptation and mitigation strategies on rural livelihoods and ecosystem services.
Dr Doan Nainggolan	Email: dna@dmu.dk	Doan has a background in natural resource management and ecological economics. His research interest revolves around developing quantitative modelling approaches to integrate human (socio-economic) processes and data and biophysical spatial processes and data which can be used to better understand trajectories or pathways of socio-environmental (or socio-ecological) changes under different plausible future scenarios.
Dr Lindsay Stringer	E-mail: l.stringer@see.leeds.ac.uk	Lindsay is a physical geographer whose research is interdisciplinary and uses theories and methods from both the natural and social sciences to understand the political ecologies of environmental change.

Workshop and interview formats

2012-11-13T12:27:45Z

The following guidelines were prepared for use in all study sites for the final workshop, in which experimental and modelling results and remediation recommendations were reviewed with the stakeholders.

1. Workshop Format

»show details ...

Duration:

Local stakeholder workshops will take one day

Summary:

The workshops will combine presentations of results with participatory methods to engage participants in evaluating trial results and model outputs, and formulating recommendations for policy and practice. As such, they represent an opportunity to both disseminate findings and collect new information on model output evaluation and policy recommendations. The workshop will focus on:

Sharing and evaluating results from WB4 trials of remediation options that were prioritised during the previous WB3 workshop
Sharing and evaluating results from WB5 models which show how the remediation options can be applied throughout the local area, taking into account the physical limitations and socio-economic assessment criteria
Selecting and/or prioritising remediation options for wider dissemination/application and making lists of recommendations relevant to stakeholders at local, up to national scales, that can facilitate their widespread adoption

Checklist:
The following inputs and materials need to be prepared before the workshop can be conducted:

Presentation of the DESIRE project
Presentation of WB4 trial results
Presentation of WB5 model outputs
Overview of criteria used in WB3
Computer(s) with Facilitator software installed
Flip-chart, tape, markers (overhead projector pens), post-it notes, sticky dots

Structure during the day [with indicative timing of elements between brackets]:

1.	Brief presentation to introduce the DESIRE project [09:30] (there may be new participants present and for those who have engaged with the project previously, a re-cap will be useful context): this should include a general overview of the project, a summary of results from WB1-WB3, focussing in particular on a) the state of land degradation and conservation efforts in the study area (WB1); b) assessment of land degradation according to indicators (WB2); and c) the reasons why remediation options were chosen for trial (explaining the criteria that were chosen by WB3 workshop participants and the results of the multi-criteria evaluation that was done then)
2.	Presentation of WB4 trial results [09:45] (presentation to be compiled in advance by study site teams) Either: a) study site teams include a pre-evaluation based on stakeholder opinion of those engaged in monitoring; or b) allow time for stakeholders who were involved in monitoring to express their experience and opinions.
3.	Presentation of WB5 model outputs [10:05] showing which remediation options are most applicable and most likely to be adopted where, across each study site. These will be pre-prepared as Powerpoint slides by the WB5 team (which can be printed as posters where projection equipment is not available). Model outputs will include analyses of feasibility vs. spatial assessment of desertification risk (WB2). Furthermore, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, outputs will be focussed according to priorities expressed by stakeholders in their selection of criteria for Multi-Criteria Evaluation in WB3 (e.g. showing which remediation options would be most likely to be adopted by the poorest in the community (e.g. with no need for up-front costs) in Botswana where poverty alleviation was an important criteria expressed in WB3, rather than focussing on which options would most likely maximise farmer profits, as prioritised in other sites like Spain)
4.	Workshop: Multi-criteria evaluation of remediation options at study site scale [10:20]
	a.	Revisit criteria used in WB3 – do we need to add new criteria (or drop certain criteria that are no longer deemed relevant) in light of what’s been learned so far today, and to ensure we can evaluate remediation options at a study site scale? For example, there may be criteria used in the model and presented in maps in the previous presentation that were not considered during WB3, which participants may want to include in the decision-making process [25 min].
	b.	In light of WB4 and 5 findings, do a Multi-criteria evaluation using revised criteria, to prioritise which remediation options (tested in WB4 and/or modelled in WB5) are most relevant for dissemination across the study site:
		i.	Using the Facilitator software (used in WB3 workshops – see WB3 training manual for instructions), enter relevant criteria and remediation options. In sites where only one option has been trialled and/or modelled, this should still be done, as a structured way of enabling everyone to evaluate the benefits/drawbacks of the technology. For study sites with a larger number of technologies to consider, it could be worthwhile splitting the stakeholder group to make separate evaluations along such lines as arable crops vs. tree crops, flatland vs. sloping land, livestock vs. cropping, etc. – whichever is a major distinction locally affecting applicability of selected technologies. Splitting the group is not advisable if this leads to low numbers of participants [45 min].
		ii.	Participants evaluate each option by each criterion individually, and group results are displayed, ranking the most popular remediation options and showing why these were deemed most relevant for dissemination (see instructions in WB3 manual for details of how to do this) [45 min] – inputting scores and deriving results from the facilitator software may take some time, so you may need to break for lunch at this point, and discuss the outputs (next step) immediately after lunch
		iii.	[This may need to be done immediately after lunch] Discuss the ranked list that emerges from the Facilitator software. Should all remediation options be disseminated, prioritising certain options? Or should some options not be further disseminated (the cut off point at which options are dropped can only be decided through discussion). Or should certain options that appear to be ranked lower than others only be promoted to certain groups in certain areas? This will result in a list of priority remediation options that excludes any options deemed inappropriate for further dissemination [45 min]. Note that two specific situations may occur (a flowchart decision aid tool is available to verify these):
			-	In some study sites, multiple (or all!) trialled remediation options may be prioritised for dissemination – in this case, the important information from this analysis is understanding why different options have been prioritised, so that this can inform the development of strategies to promote these options (see step 5 below).
			-	If none of the remediation options that were trialled and modelled are deemed appropriate for dissemination, the following workshop (step 5) should be replaced by a session which focuses instead on the reasons why they were not deemed appropriate, in order to: i) identify ways that remediation options could be adapted to make them more acceptable/effective; and/or ii) identify alternative remediation options that are less likely to have the problems associated with the options that were trialled and modelled. Potentially, stakeholders are not convinced by scientific results (e.g. trials of insufficient length) – this is another direction that the discussion might take.
5.	Workshop: how could we facilitate the adoption of the priority remediation options that have emerged at the study site scale? [14:00] This may be done very simply using a “meta-plan” followed by a “sticky dot prioritisation” (in study sites where people are largely illiterate or don’t feel comfortable writing other techniques may be substituted for this – see Section 5 below). An important element of the technique proposed here is to ensure that all participants have their say in a transparent and fair way, and to enable this to happen in a limited amount of time (just discussing this question will take much longer, and may lead to dominant characters biasing results):
	a.	Stick at least 4 sheets of flip-chart paper together on the wall (use more if you have a large group to provide plenty of room), and write the question you want people to answer at the top of the paper e.g. “How could we facilitate the adoption of the priority remediation options we’ve identified?” (ideally in less technical language!). Note that facilitating adoption is about taking advantage of opportunities, i.e. eliminating threats. Hence this workshop will give important information on the constraints and opportunities perceived by stakeholders [10 min]
	b.	Give all participants 3-5 post-it notes (for small groups 10-15, give people 4 or 5 each, but if group is over 20, only give out 3 each)
	c.	Give all participants an Over Head Projector (OHP) pen (something that’s bold enough to be seen from a distance, but fine enough to enable people to write something meaningful in such a small space)
	d.	Ask participants to answer the question on the wall, including only one point per post-it in as few words as possible, making their writing large enough to be read from a distance. They can write up to the maximum number of post-its you gave them (3-5 post-its) but don’t have to fill all their post-its [15 min]
	e.	As people finish writing their points, ask them to come and stick them on the wall, putting different points in different places, first looking at what else has been written, and putting their points next to points that are similar. Emphasise that people can discuss with each other as they come to the wall, and can move each other’s points around if they want [30 min]
	f.	Go through each of the groups of post-its that emerge in turn, suggesting what theme the post-its represent (e.g. “all these post-its are talking about different ways of subsidising remediation options”), reading out a sample of the post-its in the group, and checking if the group agrees with the way you’ve summarised the points. Be prepared to split the group up or put it with another group of post-its, if participants think this is necessary. Then circle each group of post-its in turn, writing in large letters the title/theme of the group. The themes thus evolved together constitute the “meta-plan” [20 min]
	g.	Finally, give everyone 10 sticky dots (available from any stationer – or just tell people to put crosses next to each idea but warn them to keep count and not use more than 10 crosses) – it is important that everyone has the same number of dots. Ask them to stick their dots next to the groups of ideas they like best (for whatever reason) – they can stick as many as they like next to any point (if they only think there’s one good idea, they can put all 10 next to one group of post-its). This final part of the exercise can potentially be done over a coffee break [20 min]
	h.	Count up the sticky dots (or crosses) and rank the ideas [10 min]
	i.	If there is time, you can then facilitate a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages, and practical steps that can be taken for the top ranked ideas, to make them happen in practice [45 min]
6.	Workshop evaluation [16:30]: Take a moment to evaluate the workshop in order to get feedback on the process used and the participants’ opinion on the importance of the project’s results.
	a.	Evaluation of the role scientific results from the project have played to arrive at individual evaluations by stakeholders on each criterion (step 4b – ii). Write each criterion on top of a sheet of flip-chart paper. Draw a table with three rows below it and write respectively ‘no’, ‘little’ and ‘much’ in them. Ask the participants to walk around and put one sticky dot (or cross) per sheet to characterise how much the scientific results from the project have influenced their evaluation of the remediation options.
	b.	Facilitate a round of open comments on what people thought about the workshop and the rest of the DESIRE process over the last 4 years (all WBs). The comments/remarks may generate a rich qualitative feedback (nice quotes).
7.	Next steps [16:50]: Before finishing the workshop, explain what the next steps will be – at minimum, this will involve them all receiving a workshop report specifically targeted to local stakeholders. This should include contact details for participants (with their permission) or external parties that can be contacted by people requiring advice on how to adopt/implement any of the technologies discussed. A number of other actions are likely to have emerged during the workshop, which should be documented, and people should be assigned to these actions with deadlines. One of these actions should be a clear dissemination (product) of the most promising strategies; when we want the most promising strategie(s) to be implemented and the word spread around in the area, clear guidelines should be issued on how to implement measures and how to manage implemented measures. This could be done in the form of a brochure in the language for farmers. We must prevent that the stakeholders (especially farmers) involved, having invested a lot of their precious time, end up with the feeling: ‘and now what?’. Farmers and landowners are the most important group here, in the sense they are the people who have to implement strategies on their land. They should get the feeling that an optimized end product has been produced, that can really be used in practice.

2. Interview format

»show details ...

Duration:

Allow for a minimum of two hours.

Summary:

The interviews with at least three representative district and national level members of the policy community, will focus on:

Sharing and evaluating the results of the local stakeholder workshop (above)
Sharing and evaluating WB5 model outputs showing the likely effects of a range of policy scenarios (this may be done before the results of the first session are shared, if this is deemed a more logical order by study sites)
Discussing how priority remediation options could be disseminated and promoted at district and/or national scales, using WB5 policy scenarios as a starting point

Checklist:

Schedule an individual meeting with at least three different key policy stakeholders: identify the key policy stakeholders from the stakeholder analysis (after having received feedback from the WB5 coordination team). If appropriate, ask them to organize a lunch-time seminar internal to their institution in which you will present the findings from the local stakeholder workshop and policy scenarios, including an interactive discussion element.
Pre-workshop stakeholder information: time available during an interview is likely to be limited. A folder with brief information about the DESIRE project, the context of the interview and results of the local stakeholder workshop could be sent out together with the invitation to participate in an interview, serving both to raise interest and to inform participants beforehand.
Presentation of results from the local stakeholder workshop and WB5 policy scenarios: a brief presentation introducing the framework within which the local stakeholder workshop was operated and what conclusions were drawn, and the regional effects of policy scenarios, prioritised where possible in relation to information from WB1.

Structure of the interview:

Brief presentation of the results of the local stakeholder workshop and WB5 policy scenarios [30 min]. The presentation should finish with the results from step 5 of the Workshop format: a preferred list of strategies to facilitate adoption of prioritised remediation technologies.
Allow questions and discussion [15 min], to be recorded and differences of opinion noted. Keep this reasonably short, as you want to get structured views of policy makers on what they suggest should be the strategy (d)
Ask the question: “How could we facilitate the adoption of the priority remediation options from the previous session at a study site and up to a national scale?” [5 min] Revisit the preferred list of strategies from the local stakeholder workshop and WB5 policy scenarios simulating their regional effects, and invite the audience (individual or group) to add elements as the audience represents the same stakeholder, equal individual presentation is not an issue but if differences of opinion exist between them this should be recorded)
Ask the audience to distribute 10 points over the list of suggested strategies [10 min]
Follow up with discussion [45 min] what the advantages and disadvantages are of the top-ranked ideas, and what policy actions need to be taken, how feasible that is, and what their role is in ensuring long-term adoption of the research results (cf. Workshop format, 5i)
Next steps [15 min]: Before finishing the meeting, explain what the next steps will be – at minimum, this will involve your promise to send your host a policy brief after you have taken into account the comments of various policy level stakeholders. A number of other actions are likely to have emerged during the meeting, which should be documented, and people should be assigned to these actions with deadlines.

3. Alternative set-ups for the Local Stakeholder Workshop

»show details ...

The following is a list of considerations for which a Flowchart is available to aid planning the workshop. Two phases are distinguished: i) considerations while preparing the workshop; and ii) considerations emerging during the workshop. The Flowchart itself is a digital attachment to this guide (Powerpoint file); Appendix C includes a form to keep track of Flowchart recommendations for planning.

Considerations while preparing the workshop:
Size of the study site:

Some study sites may be too large for local stakeholders (or an important group of local stakeholders such as individual farmers) to have an overview of the suitability of different remediation options across the area. Where this is the case, special attention needs to be paid to geographical representation of stakeholders, i.e. to make sure that the participants as a whole are informed about the total area. A section of the flowchart will address this issue.

The flowchart will also guide study sites through questions determining whether the workshop format of step 4 and 5 is culturally or practically appropriate. So far the following alternative set-ups will be supported:

If (some) stakeholders are illiterate; take care to select a good facilitator who can express things clearly and who is sensitive to the information needs of (some) stakeholders. A pre-assessment of remediation options by study site teams with a few stakeholders (e.g. those involved in monitoring) might serve to identify the themes likely to evolve from step 5e and visual aids may be developed prior to the workshop to support stakeholder comprehension. If less than half of the participants are expected to be illiterate (and if it is not embarrassing for individuals), writing up of comments can be done in pairs, or moderated by the facilitator (in this case it is important to give equal attention to all participants). Also go through the other flowcharts to identify if any of the other issues apply to your site.
If it is culturally not acceptable to express individual thoughts in written form, or if in the local culture discussion prevails over the suggested workshop format; a good facilitator is needed who can collect all points (paying equal attention to all) and then prepares the themes of step 5e for sticky dot voting.
If certain stakeholders have difficulties expressing themselves plenary (e.g. women do not speak out in front of men), the facilitator has a decisive role to play! Let (preferably) groups of people (according to type of stakeholder) raise their points, the facilitator first just collects all the ideas (post-its; which in some cases might need reformulation), and then groups the different points (aggregating those belonging together etc) in a plenary discussion (step 5e-f). It will be important to point out where different stakeholders agree, but also where there is disagreement, inconsistencies, contradictions etc.
If sticky dot voting is not well adapted to the local customs; alternative systems which are familiar to stakeholders can be adopted (e.g. scoring using beans as was mentioned for Botswana)
If open sticky dot voting could be problematic for (some) stakeholders; creative alternatives should be plenty, e.g. handing out 10 flat paper fiches to be deposited in closed boxes representing the various options by each participant, or a A4 paper with the options listed in table form with boxes to write any combination of numbers summing up to 10 privately (and to be deposited anonymously in a box if required).

Considerations arising during the workshop:

Most of the issues that might arise during the workshop should, based on your knowledge of the area and experience in conducting WB3 workshops, be possible to consider while preparing the workshop. However, should you unexpectedly be confronted with any problems as sketched above on the day itself, re-run through the flowchart to change strategy real-time.
One consideration you cannot plan ahead is what to do when multiple or none of the remediation technologies are evaluated favourably. The flowchart will suggest to focus the discussion following evaluation accordingly, and to replace step 5 with an alternative session if none of the technologies is recommended.

Workshop design & outcomes

2012-10-29T12:04:47Z

Workshop design

An initial workshop design was presented at the 2010 DESIRE Plenary Meeting in China for feedback from study sites, and was significantly amended in response to this feedback, to ensure that workshops were flexible enough to work effectively across the full range of project contexts, whilst providing standardised responses for comparison between sites.

In particular, the idea of a single workshop with separate (but interlinked) sessions for both local stakeholders and national policymakers was deemed infeasible by most study site teams. Workshops were therefore designed in most study sites for local/regional stakeholders, and feedback was sought from national policymakers in separate workshops or individual interviews (many of these are ongoing).

To assist study site teams in planning the workshop, a flowchart decision aid and a Frequently Asked Questions list was developed. Preparation for workshops proceeded as follows:

Update stakeholder analysis, from which an invitation list can be extracted – these lists were checked by the WB5 team to ensure a good balance between different types of stakeholder
Develop facilitation plan and agenda for the workshop, assign the facilitator, book the venue and invite participants so as to achieve an appropriate balance between (local) stakeholders identified in step 1
Run the local stakeholder workshop based on the workshop format in Appendix 1, discussing any changes deemed necessary with the WB5 team
Conduct interviews/meetings with representative members of the national policymaker stakeholder community identified in the updated stakeholder analysis (policy messages were discussed in the DESIRE Plenary Meeting in Almeria in October 2011 to assist with this)
Send workshop report to participants and to WB5 (template provided)

All workshops followed the same generic format:

Brief presentation to introduce the DESIRE project
Presentation of WB4 trial results
Presentation of WB5 model outputs
Workshop 1: Multi-criteria evaluation of remediation options at study site scale
Workshop 2: how could we facilitate the adoption of the priority remediation options that have emerged at the study site scale?
Workshop/project evaluation
Next steps

Workshop Outcomes

A total of 15 workshops were held between July and November 2011. The only site that did not hold a workshop was the Italian site, due to long-running difficulties with stakeholder engagement there. In Portugal, one workshop was held with participants from both study areas. On average, workshops consisted of 27 participants (range: 8-60), and included a wide range of (mainly local and regional) stakeholders representing different interests.

Feedback from stakeholders about the workshops was generally very positive with participants in all sites saying that they appreciated receiving feedback from field trials and models (Table 1)

»show Table 1

Table 1: Feedback from participants about the final DESIRE workshop

Theme	Example comments	Number of sites making the comment
An opportunity to express views	An excellent opportunity to make their views known regarding the national program of soil conservation and the way they think It was a very good opportunity to debate frankly key issues relevant to the management of the natural resources in the region	3
Helped participants prepare for the future	Farmers especially welcomed the team’s approach to determining future steps through discussion with them	2
An opportunity to learn about the DESIRE research	An opportunity to know the results of the project that they were part of You see simple and feasible solutions	2
Learn from and become more tolerant of each other’s views	Learn from participatory projects; tolerance between the different sectors (stakeholders)	1
An opportunity to connect with people and institutions	Workshops helped them to identify and connect with the institutions and the people who are working with them	1
Clear objectives	“The objective was very clear”	1

Feedback about the overall DESIRE process was also very positive, with positive feedback focussing on the participatory and inclusive approach to the work (Table 2).

»show Table 2

Table 2: Feedback from participants about the overall DESIRE project summarised from workshop reports (feedback in the words of workshop participants is given in quotation marks)

Theme	Example comments	Number of sites making the comment
Benefits of a participatory approach	The participatory approach gave each group of stakeholders the opportunity to be part of the project and share responsibility for the success of the selected technology As workshops were open to anyone, the workshops helped to give more transparency to the actions and decisions that arose from the process Being involved in the project from the beginning Being able to assess the technologies “will greatly facilitate the extension of the results” Farmers were very enthusiastic about the undertaken actions Technicians/engineers appreciated the participatory approach more than farmers in one site It is the best way to include all sectors, empathizing with others and getting better understanding of the other peoples opinion “It facilitates participants to express their opinion” “The possibility to start a debate over different subjects and that all opinions are valid, independent of from who it originates”	8
Poor stakeholder representation	The only real problem was the difficulty of including some other institutions other than those that typically attended workshops as part of the DESIRE process. Although the project team interacted with these other organisations, it would have been better to have them present more often during the land-user workshops Participants agreed that a higher participation of farmers is required and that to achieve this, a different approach may be needed with meetings outside in the field and only for maximum half a day Field work prevented farmers from attending some of the planned meetings Only one farmer was present at the final workshop in one study site More participation of farmers is needed, which requires new strategies for participation More participation of general public (people who do not work in the field) is needed	5
Learning from each other	Participants indicated they learned a lot from each other, from discussions and from the results of field trials. The interactive approach of workshops was considered effective to achieve interaction between participants, and was highly valued Learning from other study sites via the HIS “The DESIRE project has been good. It brought knowledge that we can pass on to younger generations” “Very enriching, mutual learning” “The DESIRE approach] promotes participation, collaboration and helps to better understand” “Exchange of experiences and generates ideas”	4
Contribution to policy	“The objectives of the DESIRE project fit in the goals of UNCCD and the positive results should be applied to other watersheds...” The results of the DESIRE project have been important for a number of programs and actions linked to the Government’s Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources. A number of proposals have already been accepted, while others are still under development	3
Time-consuming	All participants agreed that the inclusive nature of the DESIRE project was particularly useful, although it was time-consuming	2
Concerns about follow-up	Lack of funding for some remediation strategies and future research in the area Want to continue meeting in such events in future	2
Making connections	Highly encouraged the synergies between all the partners: research, development, policy, regional and international cooperation “[The project] integrated different stakeholder groups (farmers, administration, scientists)”	2
Attitudinal change	“The project changed the attitude of land users regarding the use of natural resources”	1
Lack of trust in research findings	“The engineers didn’t appreciate a lot the research protocol and were suspicious with some of the results”	1
Innovation	“Very tangible results were provided over solutions that are innovative”	1
Learning between researchers and stakeholders	“You learn and value other measures” “I learned that the mulch type as applied in this project did not give the expected results” “It combines the opinion of scientists and farmers” “I think this is the best available method to facilitate the active participation between scientists and administration”	1
Information overload	“Too much information to deal with”	1

A survey of study site teams at the Spanish DESIRE Plenary Meeting in October 2011 found that 54% of study site teams believed that stakeholders were more positive about most technologies after hearing the findings from field trials and models, and 31% were ambiguous about stakeholder responses (either due to a mix of responses or because it was difficult to tell if perceptions of technologies had changed in response to hearing findings). In some cases, remediation strategies were deselected in response to research findings, for example if model results showed that a technology was unlikely to be cost-effective for most land users, or if field trials showed that proposed remediation strategies were not as effective as stakeholders had initially believed (and in some cases counter-productive).

Table 3 shows how the process of trialling and modelling remediation strategies clearly influenced stakeholder priorities, leading to a priority list of remediation strategies for dissemination at a regional scale, by extenionists or other regional government representatives/agencies.

»show Table 3

Table 3: Remediation options in priority order, as ranked by stakeholders during WB3 workshops (prior to field trials and modelling) and during final workshops (after being presented with results from field trials and models). For detailed descriptions of technologies, see »More details ... evaluation of model results and remediation recommendations for each study site

Study Site	Priority order pre-results	Priority order post-results	Comments
Cape Verde	Small barrage/dam Water harvesting Afforestation Contour stone walls Vegetative barriers	Vegetative bunds on steep rainfed arable fields, and vegetation spread across non-sloping fields	Only afforestation and vegetative barriers were evaluated in WB4/5. Vegetative barriers were significantly adapted in response to field trial results.
Mexico	Agronomical strategies Wood saver ovens Run-off control in gullies	Agave forestry sustainable plantations with native plants = Wood saver ovens Agronomical strategies Spatially targeted run-off control in gullies	Agave plantations emerged as a new option during field trials.
Spain	Traditional water harvesting (Boquera) Reduced tillage in Cereal and Almond fields Organic mulch to reduce water losses Green manure in Almonds orchards	Green manure in Almonds orchards Reduced tillage in Cereal and Almond fields Traditional water harvesting (Boquera) Organic mulch to reduce water losses
Turkey (Karapinar)	No-till technology Pressurized irrigation Drought-resistant crops	Fallow with stubble farming Fallow without stubble farming Minimum tillage	No-tillage was adapted as minimum tillage for field trials, and stubble farming was added to field trials after the WB3 workshop.
Turkey (Eskişehir)	Planted soil bunds Stone bunds Fanya juu terraces	Wooden fences with soil bund Contour tillage	Vegetation and stones were replaced by fencing on soil bunds for field trials. Contour tillage was discussed but not ranked during the WB3 workshop.
Chile	No tillage with subsoiling Agroforestry systems Crop rotation with legumes	No tillage with subsoiling Crop rotation with legumes Agroforestry systems
China	Check dams Reforestation Terraces	Check dams Reforestation Terraces
Portugal (Mação and Góis)	Primary Strip Network System for Fuel Management Prescribed Fire	Primary Strip Network System for Fuel Management Prescribed Fire
Tunisia	Tabia and jessour Flood spreading & recharge units Supplement irrigation Stone ridges =Cisterns Range resting Medicinal herbal and aromatic plants	Flood spreading & recharge units = Supplement irrigation Medicinal herbal and aromatic plants = Cisterns
Greece (Nestos)	Fresh water transport	Fresh water transport
Greece (Crete)	Messara area: Sustainable grazing Chania area: No tillage Pesticides Tillage	Sustainable grazing	The team worked in two areas – one prioritised no-tillage and the other sustainable grazing. The majority of workshop participants came from the location that had prioritised sustainable grazing, and so no-tillage was not explicitly evaluated during the workshop.
Morocco	The improved system based on cereal cropping with rotation, plus grass strips The improved system based on grazing and cereal cropping with control of the gullies The cereal/leguminous system mixed with olive trees and runoff water harvesting	Cereal/leguminous system mixed with olive trees, figs trees; cactus opuntia and runoff water harvesting, in order to improve the production and restore the lands fertility Protection of existing grazing lands, forests and former cultivated areas Improved system based on grazing and cereal cropping with control of the gullies
Botswana	Game ranching Biogas production Rainwater harvesting Solar cookers	Biogas production	Biogas production was the only remediation strategy that was trialled in this study site
Russia (Novy)	Precision irrigation of forage instead of overhead sprinkler irrigation (which uses excessive amounts of water) Drip irrigation Reducing of the infiltration losses from water supply channels	Precision irrigation Drip irrigation Impermeability of irrigation channels Drainage of irrigated agricultural fields Phytoreclamation of soil secondary salinity at agricultural fields
Russia (Dzhanibek)	Grazing land management by rotation introducing Drip irrigation Forest, apple tree plantation or shrub belt planting Contour planting and gully control	Drip irrigation Impermeability of the bed of water storage capacities

However, rather than simply using these research findings to prioritise remediation strategies, Table 4 shows how the workshop process provided invaluable local knowledge about how best to promote each of these strategies to optimise adoption rates. This builds on evidence from WOCAT that developing “approaches” to soil and water conservation, that may include changes in policy or incentives for example, is as important as the technologies themselves (Schwilch et al., 2009).

Table 4 shows the wide range of suggestions made during workshops to help facilitate the adoption of different technologies. These include, for example: the need to adapt technologies to make them relevant in different contexts or for different farmer goals; policy recommendations to create a more favourable economic context for adoption; financial incentives, and a variety of approaches to communication.It may be difficult to do much to change the preferences and constraints of the land users that remediation strategies are targeted at, the cost of adopting a remediation strategy, or to alter the policy or economic climate in which remediation strategies are promoted. However, where remediation strategies are deemed applicable and cost-effective across a wide enough area, the workshop findings suggest that there are a number of key ways in which uptake could be enhanced. For example: there may be ways that remediation strategies can be adapted, packaged or communicated that could enhance their uptake; or key individuals or institutions may be able to play an important role in spreading knowledge and changing attitudes, ultimately leading to more widespread adoption decisions.

»show Table 4

Table 4: Factors identified by workshop participants that could enhance the adoption of remediation strategies prioritised in the final DESIRE workshop. For detailed discussion of factors that could enable further uptake, see workshop reports in see »More details ... evaluation of model results and remediation recommendations for each study site.

Study Site	Priority Remediation Strategies	Summary of key enablers
Cape Verde	Vegetative barriers/cover	Target the technology to specific types of land Secure funding from NGOs and municipality Build the capacity of farmers and provide technical assistance Promote adoption of the proposed strategy via specific existing national and international policies Use drought resistant species in more arid areas or target at irrigated land
Mexico	Agave forestry sustainable plantations with native plants Wood saver ovens Agronomical strategies Spatially targeted run-off control in gullies	Establish and maintain long-term working relationships with local and regional stakeholders, including Government Ministries and agencies Adapt remediation strategies to fit in with ongoing Government initiatives Spatially target the adoption of remediation strategies that do not work everywhere Investigate funding and legal aspects of technologies in addition to their technical feasibility Consider the potential for unintended consequences of promising technologies (e.g. wood burning stoves displacing gas burning stoves and so increasing demand for wood)
Spain	Green manure in Almonds orchards Reduced tillage in Cereal and Almond fields Traditional water harvesting (Boquera) Organic mulch to reduce water losses	Training: a) of technical representatives at farmers organizations , and b) at high-schools and universities to create awareness and put environmental sustainability higher on the agenda. Demonstration activities in the field and development of a network of demonstration and experimental farms throughout the region Better cooperation and collaboration between different institutes (i.e. researchers, administration and farmers organisations) Economic support for implementation of SLM measures Lobby and convince responsible policy makers Put higher economic and social value on products that are produced in a sustainable manner Link payment of agricultural subsidies to implementation of effective SLM measures More dissemination and publicity for SLM measures through newsletters and websites
Turkey (Karapinar)	Fallow with stubble farming Fallow without stubble farming Minimum tillage	Communicate results of field trials and models as widely as possible via brochures and meetings Articles in newspapers and specialist press
Turkey (Eskişehir)	Wooden fences with soil bund Contour tillage	Communicate likely future challenges relating to ground water availability and wind erosion to raise awareness of the need to adopt more sustainable approaches to land management e.g. through newspapers, brochures and meetings
Chile	No tillage with subsoiling Crop rotation with legumes Agroforestry systems	Provide economic incentives for the adoption of sustainable practices via Government programmes Use participatory approaches that take the context and goals of farmers into account, when disseminate results Facilitate local leadership and long-term coordination between local institutions Training for technicians to support the adoption of the technologies Further evaluate the economic and social impact of the soil conservation practices
China	Check dams Reforestation Terraces	Communicate both environmental and economic benefits as widely as possible Work with existing schemes where possible
Portugal	Primary Strip Network System for Fuel Management Prescribed Fire	Reformulate legislation and simplify bureaucracy Promote association membership and then promote remediation strategies through associations Provide economic incentives Create demonstration sites Raise awareness of the benefits of prescribed fire among rural populations
Tunisia	Flood spreading & recharge units Supplement irrigation Medicinal herbal and aromatic plants Cisterns	Consolidate synergies between research programs and development projects Maintain traditional techniques and local know-how in the management of natural resources while introducing improvements where it is relevant Integrate remediation strategies into regional and national action plans for combating desertification and climate change
Greece (Nestos)	Fresh water transport	Promote via local agricultural unions and the Regional Department of Water Management Local press and debates in local coffee shops Change local water policy (to permit water transport >500 m)
Greece (Crete)	Sustainable grazing	Change in EU subsidies to incentivise destocking
Morocco	Cereal/leguminous system mixed with olive trees, figs trees; cactus opuntia and runoff water harvesting, in order to improve the production and restore the lands fertility Protection of existing grazing lands, forests and former cultivated areas Improved system based on grazing and cereal cropping with control of the gullies	Ensure remediation techniques are profitable and have a real effect on farmer incomes The selected actions must be simple and easy to reproduce, in order to facilitate their adoption by other farmers Better coordination betwee Government departments working on agriculture and forests Financial incentives to exclude grazing and plant fodder shrubs, to prevent soil erosion and stabilize gullies
Botswana	Biogas production	Education, awareness and information dissemination Demonstration in the context of development projects Financial assistance Conservation initiatives (development)
Russia (Novy)	Precision irrigation Drip irrigation Impermeability of irrigation cabals Drainage of irrigated agricultural fields Phytoreclamation of soil secondary salinity at agricultural fields	Financial incentives Develop human resources and capacity to use new technologies Develop relevant technical infrastructure
Russia (Dzhanibek)	Drip irrigation Impermeability of the bed of water storage capacities	Communicate benefits via mass media, including economic and health benefits as well as environmental benefits

Rather than simply presenting research findings to decision-makers, as per the technology transfer paradigm, the DESIRE process was designed to facilitate knowledge exchange and joint ownership of findings. At best, the technology transfer paradigm is an inefficient approach to spreading knowledge of new remediation options, with those who receive the information potentially not engaging with it or questioning its validity or relevance. At worst, a one-way transfer of knowledge can lead to the development of technologies that are not adapted to the local context, leading to low adoption rates and/or unintended consequences. In contrast to this, the DESIRE approach puts local and scientific knowledge on an equal footing, giving stakeholders ownership of the research process via their involvement from the initial stages, through selection and trialling of remediation strategies, to the final decisions about priority remediation strategies for dissemination via extension services at a regional or wider spatial scale. Modelling studies in particular have been widely criticised for creating a “black box” where it is impossible for stakeholders to identify or question the assumptions of the model builder, leading to a lack of trust in the final output (Prell et al., 2007). Being able to question findings from trials and models during the final workshop enabled stakeholders in the DESIRE process to open this “black box”, so that evidence based on field trial results and model outputs could be weighted appropriately in their final prioritisation. This resulted in a level of stakeholder trust and satisfaction in the research findings that is unusual in model-based studies, as evidenced by the generally positive feedback from workshop participants re: the contribution that research findings made to their knowledge (see see »More details ... evaluation of model results and remediation recommendations for each study site).

Data quality, findings, novelties and shortcomings

2012-10-15T13:51:51Z

Quality and quantity of input data

DESMICE primarily relies on economic data reported in the WB3 WOCAT database. It further makes use of additional information requested in information sheets from study sites. Variation of investment costs of technology has proved to be difficult to obtain, while, as shown in »Scale issues and uncertainty analysis, this can have important implications for the analysis. A review of international published and grey literature is therefore recommended as follow up work. Where price information was not available additional secondary data was collected. Input map material to a large extent coincides with PESERA input data. A digital elevation model is by default taken from the publicly available SRTM90 dataset. Price conversions of local currencies to Euro were done using oanda.com. Taking into consideration this need for secondary data, PESERA-DESMICE can be run but shortcomings should be kept in mind.

Findings

(Simple) technological options exist that can minimize land degradation and increase food production. Many technologies are however only profitable in the long run (e.g 20 years) which means that high investment costs are a bottleneck for adoption.
Low (zero) cost agronomic measures and other options that deliver important benefits in the short term are the preferred technologies. Stakeholder evaluation and model output mostly concur.
There are important design and opportunity cost considerations which influence the analysis. For larger (more expensive) technologies feasibility studies will need to be done on a case by case basis. Model can be used for first approximation.

Novelties

The PESERA-DESMICE modelling approach overcomes a number of challenges to incorporate inputs from multiple stakeholders in very different contexts into the modelling process, in order to enhance both the realism and relevance of outputs for policy and practice.
Site-selection modelling is being applied to land degradation mitigation to enable landscape-scale assessments of the most economically optimal way to attain environmental targets.
Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to investigate the spatial variability of the profitability of SWC measures, which may have important implications for the adoption of measures across landscapes and their consequent environmental effects.

Shortcomings

It appeared to be difficult for study sites to estimate spatial variation in investment costs of technologies (a review of data to produce estimates for different types of technologies to fill this gap is recommended that could serve to define default parameters in the DESMICE model).
The temporal dimension of changes in productivity is crucial for land users. Biophysical models (e.g. PESERA) should be able to separate immediate and gradual aspects. Ongoing degradation in the without case is not yet implicitly considered. Analysis of robustness to climatic variability and prices is also essential.
Factors such as attitude towards conservation and risk are likely to be very important in decision-making and could further limit adoption of technologies.

Scale issues and uncertainty analysis

2012-10-15T13:50:46Z

In applications of the PESERA-DESMICE modeling framework two complications were frequently encountered:

Spatial variability of investment costs is poorly known;
Timing of biophysical effects is not explicit;

The effects of these bottlenecks are explored in two case studies in the subsections below.

Effect of spatial variability of investment costs

Taking as an example the application of bench terraces with loess soil walls in the Yanhe River basin in the Loess Plateau of China, spatial variability of investment costs was defined as follows:

INVs=US$1,823 *S/30 [1]

where INVs is the investment cost per hectare for slope gradient S (in percent) and US$1,823 is the investment cost reported for a standard slope of 30%.

Calculating the average investment cost per hectare across the area where the technology is applicable (3,732 km²) with Equation 1 gives US$1,591 ± 717. To assess the effect of different levels of variation of investment costs with slope gradient, the mean was subtracted from the INVs data layer and the resulting raster multiplied with factors 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0 before adding the mean investment cost again. This approach resulted in a number of rasters with the same average investment cost but different standard deviation and ranges (Table 1), which were subsequently used to assess the financial viability of the technology following the steps of the PESERA-DESMICE framework.

Table 1: Levels of spatial cost variability and resulting range of investment costs for bench terraces in Yan River Basin, China.

Investment cost (US$)	Relative level of spatial cost variability
Investment cost (US$)	0	0.25	0.50	0.75	1
Maximum	1,591	2,488	3,386	4,284	5,182
Minimum	1,591	1,196	801	406	12
Standard deviation	0	179	359	538	717

The case study of bench terraces in the Yan River Basin in China shows an important influence of variable investment costs (Figure 1A). When no spatial variability is taken into account, terraces are financially attractive in 13% of the area where they can technically be implemented. This proportion rises to 50% if costs are taken proportionate to the reference slope (Equation 1). Figure 1A clearly demonstrates that the effect of spatial cost variability is not linear; not considering or underestimating the level of variability in costs may hence considerably underestimate potential profitability of bench terracing, whereas overestimating the level of variability of the required investment may rapidly lead to exaggerated viability estimates. Not only does the percentage of the area where the technology can be economically implemented change, but also the locations (results not shown). In absence of slope-related spatial variability, slope does not exert any influence and viability is in this case primarily responding to climatic variation. As the slope dimension is phased in, more and more less sloping land in areas with suboptimal climatic conditions replaces rugged areas with highly suitable climate.


Figure 1: A. Financial viability of bench terraces in Yanhe river basin under different levels of spatial investment cost variability;	B. Financial viability of gully control with atriplex in Sehoul as a function of time to reach maximum productivity.

Effect of timing of biophysical effects
The technologies assessed in the DESIRE project included agronomic (e.g. minimum tillage) as well as structural, vegetative and management SLM measures. All measures, but especially the second group, impact on slow soil ecological processes and will gradually improve soil structure and fertility, and hence system productivity. The PESERA model simulates the equilibrium conditions in the with and without technology case. One of the sites where PESERA predicted a particularly large improvement in productivity was in the Sehoul area close to Rabat, Morocco – for gully control by plantation of atriplex (Atriplex halimus). In the standard calculation, it was assumed that production would increase linearly until reaching its maximum value after 20 years - i.e. time to maturity TTM = 20. By employing Equation 2, net present value was calculated for time productivity series with different TTM values (15, 18, 25, 27, 30 and 33 years):

[2]

Where NPV_TTM refers to the net present value of the cashflow series over 20 years for the case with implementation of gully control only; j and t are measured in years and NPV in currency. After calculating NPV_TTM values, investment costs and total discounted production in the without case (which remain the same under different TTM values) need to be subtracted. Finally, for evaluation of the effect of TTM, the percentage of cells in the applicability area of the technology is calculated.

Gully control with atriplex in Sehoul, Morocco is not very sensitive to small changes around the assumed 20 years it takes to reach maximum productivity (Figure 11B). However, this is a rough assumption, so we should look further than the short range between 18 and 25 years where the viability of the technology is not affected. When approximating a TTM of 15 years, the viability of atriplex planting rapidly reaches 100% of the applicable area, up from 82% on the stable area from 18-25 year. Even more dramatic is the drop between a TTM of 25 and 30 years, when the technology seizes to viable in more than 60% of the applicable area. The negative slope of the relation flattens of after 30 years, but gully control with atriplex by then remains profitable in only 13% of the area. From this example, it is clear that one would need to be confident of the interval 18-25 years it would take vegetation to reach maximum productivity, outside of which the system becomes very sensitive to the issue of timing.

Discussion of scale issues
In studies of adoption of SLM technologies, plot location is often found to be of importance (e.g. Staal et al, 2002; Noltze et al., 2012). The spatial variation in investment costs of SLM technologies and distance to markets are likely to play a key role, although explicit studies of variations in costs are scarce (e.g. Shively, 1999; Tenge et al., 2005). As Heidkamp (2008), it in a more general context, puts it: “the environment has been largely ignored beyond its treatment as a more or less passive location condition or resource factor input”. Although the illustration of cost differentiation with slope for bench terraces in China provides an example of the susceptibility of outcomes to this factor, the finding that taking variability in investment cost into account leads to a larger viability is specific. In other cases, for example where data is gathered from a relatively cheap experiment in optimal conditions, considering spatial variability factors might lead to reduced levels of predicted viability. Much data on spatial variability of different types of SLM technologies probably exists in design manuals, project documents, and other grey literature. A review of those materials is recommended to define some generic relations that can be used to improve model assessments of SLM.

The timing of biophysical effects has potentially significant influence on viability of technologies. The point version of PESERA allows simulation in time series mode after equilibrium conditions have been established. The grid version of the model, which was used here, lacks this facility. Still, model validation, specifically of timing of effects, is difficult due to interactions and the paucity of long-term field trials which are intensively monitored. Although the illustrative case study had a long term restoration goal, the cumulative effects of annually repeated SLM technologies may also be significant (see e.g. Hobbs et al., 2008). The importance of the temporal dimension in evaluating technologies is clear from the inclusion of a discount factor in CBA. This can work two ways: in the case of technology application, it is important for land users to start reaping benefits as early as possible; but in the without case, ongoing degradation can further affect yield levels (Lal, 1995).

Synthesis of scenario results for all study sites

2012-08-08T11:19:59Z

PESERA-DESMICE simulations were made for 12 study sites of the DESIRE study sites (see individual study sites sections for details). The DESMICE model was also applied in a non-spatially explicit manner to assess biogas as a desertification mitigation option in the Boteti area in Botswana (Perkins et al., in press) and is included in this cross-site analysis as well.

1 Botswana (Boteti)

2 Cape Verde (Ribeira Seca)

3 Chile (Seccano Interior)

4 China (Yan River Basin)

5 Greece (West-Crete)

6 Mexico (Cointzio)

7 Morocco (Sehoul)

8 Portugal (Góis)

9 Portugal (Mação)

10 Spain (Guadalentín)

11 Tunisia (Zeuss-Koutine)

12 Turkey (Eskişehir)

13 Turkey (Karapinar)

Figure 1: Locations of DESIRE study sites for which PESERA-DESMICE was run.

The remaining study sites have not been included in this report for a variety of reasons. In the Rendina basin (Italy) shallow landslides are the main land degradation problem for which PESERA was extended (PESERA-L ; Borselli et al, 2011). The temporal and spatial dimensions at which shallow landslides occur are not readily translatable in land use management options for which to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, and therefore the DESMICE model could not be applied. However, the results of PESERA-L are described in DESIRE report 82 (Borselli et al, 2011). The Nestos River Delta site (Greece) and two Russian study sites (Novy and Dzhanibek) feature salinization and water logging problems for which PESERA is not applicable. In principle, it would be possible to couple the DESMICE model with alternative models that are more suitable for these problems than PESERA. The biophysical model results for the Russian sites are presented in the individual study site sections.

PESERA Baseline runs
Baseline assessments of soil erosion under current conditions were made for a range of study sites (Figure 2). Comparing these assessments, it becomes apparent that there are large differences between sites. One very remarkable result is the low degradation problem in Karapinar (Turkey). In this site, wind erosion rather than water erosion is the main degradation problem. Either lower soil loss rates are already alarming or wind erosion processes were not adequately modelled, e.g. because of a lack of good wind speed data. PESERA results put the Seccano Interior (Chile) in first place regarding the severity of soil erosion, while Yan River Basin (China) and Eskişehir (Turkey) also rank high. West-Crete (Greece), Cointzio (Mexico) and Sehoul (Morocco) show a more mixed picture, with both pockets of unaffected and severely affected land. According to these results, the Guadalentín (Spain) and Zeuss-Koutine (Tunisia) areas are only moderately affected by soil erosion.


Figure 2: Overview of PESERA baseline run erosion rates for selected study sites	Figure 3: Degradation degree and extent in study sites according to WOCAT mapping. Source: Van Lynden et al., 2011

It is interesting to compare model assessment of soil erosion with land degradation mapping using expert knowledge (Figures 2 and 3). The latter was done in WB1 using the WOCAT mapping method (Van Lynden et al., 2011). When comparing Figure 2 with Figure 3 (taking care that not all sites feature in both charts), one can note:

China – that the proportion of the area affected by serious land degradation is roughly similar; experts are more optimistic in classifying the remaining land as little affected than model results suggest;
Mexico – little agreement between model results and expert opinion, with the latter assessing the situation much less degraded;
Morocco – both model and experts sketch a mixed picture of land degradation, with a striking level of agreement;
Spain – although both methods emphasize intermediate classes of land degradation, the model is on this account more optimistic than the experts;
Tunisia – experts consider over 70% as severely degraded, whereas the model assesses 70% as very little degraded;
Turkey (Eskişehir) – again a striking agreement between model and expert opinion, and a severely degraded site;
Turkey (Karapinar) – little agreement, with experts noting severe land degradation and the model missing any degradation problem (as is briefly discussed above).

The Tunisian site is the most arid, followed by the Spanish and Turkish sites, which overall seem to have more severe land degradation in expert opinion than model assessment. It could be that low levels of vegetation typical for those more arid conditions influence the experts, or that PESERA is too sensitive to slope angle in comparison to plant cover.

Technology scenarios
The effectiveness and financial viability of a total of 22 technologies were simulated in the combined study sites. As Table 1 shows, structural measures (n=8) were the most common, followed by agronomic measures (7), management measures (5) and vegetative measures (2). In order to include technologies, availability of experimental data (»Local field experiment results and conclusions) was in many cases a requirement to understand the functioning and effectiveness of the technology and to calibrate PESERA to local site conditions.

Table 1: Overview of technologies in each study site for which PESERA-DESMICE simulations were run and their classification according to main WOCAT categories: agronomic, management, structural & vegetative.

When classifying the simulated technologies according to the type of measure, a gradient of increasing cost of investment can be observed going from Agronomic < Management < Structural measures ≈ Vegetative (Figure 4A). Agronomic measures were very cheap and in one case actually presented a cost saving (range -€30 - €79 per ha); they can be incorporated in the annual crop production cycle and are confined to application on arable land. Management measures are more versatile and included a variety of technologies ranging from biogas to prescribed fire for fire prevention and controlling access to fields or rangelands. They typically command an investment analysis as benefits tend to accrue in the medium to long term. The same holds for structural measures. Variability in investment costs was high in this category due to the inclusion of some expensive structures (e.g. checkdams for land - China). Vegetative measures were surprisingly the most expensive category. Although only consisting of a non-representative sample size of two technologies, one could generalize and say that due to their implementation in restoration activities, large investments were required and in order to enable seedlings to survive additional management and structural measures are also used.


	Figure 4: Investment costs (a), applicability limitations (b) and financial viability (c) of different types of measures.

Next, we verified that for technologies modelled (under widely variable circumstances), most frequently about half of the study site can be treated due to applicability limitations. However, in some cases this is considerably less (checkdams for land – China: 9%; gully control by planting atriplex – Morocco: 10%) or more (terraces with pigeon peas – Cape Verde: 76%; rangeland resting – Tunisia: 69%). When aggregating per type of measures, management measures seem to have the widest range of applicability, followed by structural and agronomic measures (Figure 4B). It is suggested that vegetative measures typically demand more specific conditions and are consequently not as widely applicable.

Within applicable areas, many technologies are not profitable in about 70% of the area. Figure 4C shows aggregated financial feasibility of the technologies considered. This figure needs to be interpreted with caution as many factors come into play. For agronomic measures, effectiveness is an important factor. Yields may not respond or even be negatively affected, rendering the technology uneconomic despite low cost. For management measures, their versatile nature makes that although they are widely applicable, they are not universally financially sustainable. Together with structural measures, another factor with large influence is the time horizon after which the technology is evaluated. Some examples are included of measures that are not profitable after 10 years, but very profitable after 20 years. For structural measures, another factor that contributes to mixed financial performance is their sometimes very high investment cost. For the two vegetative measures, which are shown to be attractive in 100% of their applicability area, one should not forget that this is on a limited area – i.e. they may be highly specialized measures. More importantly however, the without case is unproductive in these cases, and the fact that plants need to grow to maturity means that the right time to evaluate the measure may be more easily determined.

Policy scenarios
A total of 11 policy scenarios were run for 8 different sites, of which this section provides a brief overview. The first question we can ask is whether policies contributed to the aim to facilitate upscaling of desertification remediation options. Figure 5A shows a large spread in feasibility of technologies under situations with and without policy interventions. The 1:1 line is the no-effect line and usually one expects only the area above the line to be populated; the larger the distance to this line the more effective a policy is. The chart shows that in a few instances, policies do not result in increased feasibility. On two occasions, there are slight improvements of an already quite high feasibility, e.g. from 81 to 93%. In the remaining cases, an unprofitable technology is raised to being feasible in between 33 and 94% of the applicable area.

Comparing the per area unit costs of technologies with their effectiveness in reducing soil erosion, from a sample of policy scenarios for which cost data was available (n=5), a general trend of increasing effectiveness with increasing cost can be observed (Figure 5B). A much better correlation was found between total cost of a policy and its effectiveness in reducing soil erosion (Figure 8C). The difference between the two charts is that in the first instance, the area aspect relates to the cost of (subsidies towards implementation of) technologies on a per hectare basis, whereas in the second case the total cost of a policy can be high because of a large applicability area.


	Figure 5: a) Effectiveness of policy scenarios on feasibility of technologies; b) per unit cost-efficiency of policy measures assessed; and c) total cost-efficiency of policy measures assessed.

Global scenarios
Figures 6 and 7 respectively show results of cross-site analyses of opportunities for increased food production and reduced soil erosion. Turning first to the food production scenario, average potential yield increase ranges from less than 50 kg/ha to more than 3000 kg/ha (Figure 6A). However, in three quarters of the study sites, productivity can increase by more than 500 kg/ha. In half of the cases where increased food production is possible, improvements can cover the lion share of the applicability area (Figure 6B). In all sites, yield increases can be obtained in more than 20% of the applicable area. The investment costs required to achieve this are substantial when looking at the first year (Figure 6C, n=12, average cost €567/ton when one case with ‘cost’ below zero is excluded), but are reduced when aggregating over the economic life of technologies (Figure 6D, n=9, average cost €145/ton).



Figure 6A-D: Results for cross-site comparison of food production scenario

Opportunities to reduce land degradation exist universally across applicability areas: at minimum, soil can be conserved by the technologies assessed on 70% of the applicable area. The rate by which soil loss can be reduced is either very high (80-100%) or moderate (0-40% reduction). In some cases, there are no additional costs involved to reduce soil loss, in others substantial investments (>€1000/ton) need to be made if analyses are done on a single year of erosion reduction. When spread out over the lifetime of technologies, erosion reduction becomes much more affordable, at rates often below €250/ton and in a considerable number of cases below €100/ton.



Figure 7A-D: Results for cross-site comparison of minimizing land degradation scenario.

PESERA-DESMICE model: calibration and scenario analysis

2012-08-07T13:21:59Z

Calibration of the PESERA model

In »PESERA-DESMICE: Land management evaluation model it is described how the biophysical model proposed for the DESIRE project builds on and extends the PESERA model (Kirkby et al., 2008), originally developed for Pan-European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment within a dedicated EU (FP5) project. The original PESERA model was extended to capture the role of grazing, fire and wind erosion more effectively, and enhance pedotransfer functions on the basis of dialogue and data within each study area; this work is described in »PESERA: improved biophysical descriptions. In this section we describe how, in order to generate model output for each DESIRE study site, PESERA was adapted to reflect indicators and land degradation drivers identified in Phase A of DESIRE (»Study site contexts & goals: local desertification extent and impact and »Assessment with land degradation indicators) as closely as possible. The modified model was used to look at the biophysical effects of different remediation options that have been trialled in study areas.

The strategy to do this is by comparison of baseline to modified conditions:

The PESERA baseline is an assessment of a series of biophysical descriptors at an equilibrium state driven by mean climate, land use, soil and topography. These descriptors are an estimate of monthly estimates of biomass (productivity), runoff and erosion. The PESERA baseline assessment was achieved with best understanding and interpretation of current land management practice and technologies, and constitutes the "without" case in technology assessment.
The adapted PESERA assessment is a representation of the same biophysical descriptors, but now evaluated as the simulated effects of a specific desertification remediation option. Adapted assessments were achieved with best understanding of the functioning of technologies. It hence forms the "with" case of technology application.

Both baseline assessments and adapted PESERA assessments are input for DESMICE.

Climatic regimes and appropriate technologies

The DESIRE study sites represent a very wide range of climatic conditions, and the climate exerts perhaps the strongest constraint on what are appropriate remedial technologies. Figure 1 illustrates this climatic range. Months represented as points above and to the left of the Rf=PE have insufficient water for unrestrained growth, so that water is a limiting resource. If rainfall is less than about 60% of the potential evapotranspiration during the growing season, then rain-fed agriculture is severely limited, and only some specialised crops, such as olives or agave, can survive without irrigation. However, the high temperatures provide good conditions for rapid growth, and often for several crops per year where irrigation water can be provided economically.

The various climatic regimes provide different constraints to sustainable land use, and these are summarised in Figure 2, drawn with the same axes and scales as Figure 1. Under appropriate conditions, the greatest constraints may be through wind or water erosion, water scarcity, wildfires or frost damage.


Figure 1: The climatic environment of study sites. Loops show mean monthly precipitations and temperatures for representative DESIRE study site areas.	Figure 2: Factors that constrain sustainable land use.

PESERA adaptation for DESIRE technologies
Many of the DESIRE technologies consider rainfed cereal agriculture, where natural soil erosion rates are increased by an order of magnitude with long term on- and off-site impacts. Other technologies focus on biomass protection but more commonly on a combination of more than one technology (Table 1).

Table 1: Mitigation measures accommodated within the adapted PESERA modules

DESIRE study site	Baseline (PESERA/ site)	Tillage (minTill /redTill /noTill)	noTill/ subsoil	Mulch/ stubble	Cont. plough	Grass terrace/ woven fences	Water/soil harvesting	Biomass protection/ recovery (green cover)
Sehoul	yes	yes						atriplex/ resting
Karapinar	yes	yes		yes
Eskişehir	yes				yes	yes
Guadalentín	yes	yes		yes
Secano Interior	yes	yes	yes
Yan River Basin	yes	yes				yes	check-dams
Cointzio	yes	yes		yes				(agave)
Riberia Seca	yes					yes		pigeon peas
Zeuss Koutine	yes						jessour	resting
Góis	yes							prescriptive fires
Mação	yes							preventative fires
Boteti								biogas

In rainfed cereal agricultural protection from erosion is generally most effective through measures that increase infiltration rates and so reduce the amount of overland flow runoff and soil loss. The most reliable measure is generally to increase ground cover. In areas at greatest risk, this may require the maintenance of a natural vegetation cover (without excessive grazing), but a number of conservation measures can reduce erosion within cropland. Inter-cropping ensures ground cover throughout the rainy season. Strip cropping reduces the distance over which runoff can build up before flowing back into a vegetated strip. Terracing reduces the overall gradient, and so the erosive power of runoff, but must be combined with measures to protect the over-steepened terrace risers, by strengthening them with stone or perennial vegetation and/or by diverting runoff away from them. Over time, terraces generally accumulate deeper soils along their lower margins, often at the expense of the upper part of the terrace, and the deeper soils may help to retain more water for the growing crops. Table 2 shows typical change in PESERA parameters and variables used to simulate mitigation options and associated changes in cultivation management.

Table 2: Typical change in PESERA parameters and variables used to simulate mitigation options

	Vegetation cover (kg/m²)	Ground cover (%)	Humus (kg/m²)	Crust	P1swap1 (mm)	Rough (mm)	Re- infiltration (mm)
minTillage	+	+	+	-
Ploughed stubble			+
stubble	+	+	+
Contour ploughing						+	+
Woven fences/ terraces					+		+

Prescriptive and preventative management is adopted in areas prone to wildfire (Esteves et al., 2012). Wildfire occurs wherever there is a substantial accumulation of dry above-ground biomass. This combination is usually associated with forest or shrub vegetation rather than with cropland. Fires are generally ignited either by lightning strikes, which are generally more frequent in the tropics, or through human intervention, either deliberate or accidental, related to the number of people using or visiting the forests and so substantial in Europe with its high densities of roads and population. Fires, once started, are most severe when the biomass loading is high, but they spread most quickly when the biomass is less and wind speeds are high, so that the fire moves through the canopy and burns the soil less severely. Under severely water-scarce conditions, biomass is dry, but too sparse to support large fires. Under humid conditions, there is a high biomass but it rarely dries out enough to support a fire. Intermediate conditions provide the conditions of greatest fire risk, with sufficient moisture to provide good growth and a dry season to reduce the moisture content of the canopy. Figure 3 shows how the greatest risk is associated with these intermediate areas.

Figure 3: Climatic component of wildfire risk for Europe under natural vegetation.

Scenario analysis with DESMICE model

The DESMICE model is developed as a series of ARCGIS Modelbuilder modules with subroutines programmed in Python. As explained in »PESERA-DESMICE: Land management evaluation model the socio-economic model (DESMICE) informs PESERA where remediation technologies can be implemented, and PESERA provides the biophysical output on which DESMICE will subsequently elaborate to calculate economic feasibility. Relative to the original model description, some simplifications were implemented. In some cases, this reflects the fact that data was limited. However, this also stems from a separation of model steps and scenario analysis, reducing the number of model steps from 12 to 6. The 6 model steps are shown below:

1. First it is necessary to define where each technology can, on biophysical grounds, in principle be applied. This is an important step in that it rules out the area where technologies cannot be applied e.g. terraces on steep slopes with shallow soils. Factors considered include: soil depth, slope, land use, climate and distance to streams.
2. The PESERA model is run, taking into account each technology’s potential applicability area, and compared to a case where no technology is applied. In practice, applicability limitations can also be clipped out later to reduce coordination effort.
3. WOCAT technology questionnaires currently show only one cost estimate; in reality this will depend on location. DESMICE can consider two different aspects: environmental conditions (e.g. terrace spacing and hence cost depends on slope) and distance to market. The latter functionality was not implemented in the analyses for this report.
4. The technologies that are being assessed may have different economic lifetimes. Therefore, shorter-lived technologies are assessed over several cycles of re-investment (over the length of time that the longest lived technology is likely to last for). Years of (re-)investment are filled first; maintenance costs are subsequently added for years in between investment. Production costs need also to be considered because application of technologies may lead to a change of land use or use of input (e.g. more labour because of larger harvest).
5. To value effects of a remediation strategy, the following will be assessed on a yearly basis for the lifetime of the technology (or multiple lifetimes): A. Evolution of production output (yield x value) over time B. Evolution of costs of implementing the technology and land use associated with it C. Evolution of production output (yield x value) as it would develop were the mitigation strategy not applied D. Evolution of the costs associated with the land use in this ‘without’ case For each year, the net result can then be calculated as [A-B-C+D] (note that benefits and costs may vary both in space and time).
6. The annual cash-flows of step 5 are subsequently used in a Financial Cost-Benefit Analysis (FCBA). An important issue in FCBA is discounting, i.e. introducing an interest rate that depreciates costs or benefits occurring in the future relative to those felt now. Summing discounted cash-flows gives the Net Present Value (NPV) for each technology. For each grid cell, one of the following three possible outcomes will apply: • The technology with highest NPV will be selected (when positive) (the adoption grid shows a possible configuration of technology A, B and C) • No technology will be selected if all NPVs are negative (i.e. white pixels in potential adoption grid) • No technology will be selected if no technology is applicable in the area (blue cells in adoption grid)

Model input data primarily comes from the WOCAT database. Additional data requests were made using two information sheets (for study sites and technologies respectively). Furthermore, data from field trials were used in parameterizing the DESMICE model.

Different types of scenarios were developed to simulate the effects of proposed remediation strategies as well as of policies. These were:

Baseline scenario, the PESERA baseline run, see above.
Technology scenario, assessing the effects and financial viability of mitigation options for those areas where they are applicable.
Policy scenario, assessing the effectiveness of financial incentive (and alternative) mechanisms to stimulate adoption of technologies if they are not economically attractive. Local policies have in some cases been considered based on information from WB1 and study sites.
Adoption scenario, considering the simulated technologies (if more than one) in conjunction and assumes that the most profitable option has the highest potential for uptake by land users. In order to make the net present value of different options comparable, the same time horizon is applied to the analysis.
Global scenario; two types were defined, the food production and minimizing land degradation scenarios. The food production scenario selects the technology with the highest agricultural productivity (biomass) for each cell where a higher productivity than in the baseline scenario is achieved. The minimizing land degradation scenario selects the technology with the highest mitigating effect on land degradation or none if the baseline situation demonstrates the lowest rate of land degradation.

The combined PESERA-DESMICE model was run for all study sites with data and degradation processes for which the model can be applied to simulate both the bio-physical and socio-economic consequences of these scenarios. The field data collected in Phase C of DESIRE »Implementing & monitoring field trials part of allowed performing a calibration check to get biophysical effects in the right order of magnitude. Model output was discussed in final stakeholder workshops to allow further broad-based qualitative evaluation of integrated model results. The evaluation is discussed in »Evaluation of remediation recommendations.

PESERA-L: an addendum to simulate shallow mass movement

2011-06-09T14:00:07Z

PESERA-L is an addendum to PESERA, modelling sediment yield due to shallow mass movment in a watershed. It was developed to simulate the shallow landslides which are the main land degradation problem in the Rendina study site.

PESERA-L website

The PESERA-L model is released as a freeware software for the scientific community. PESERA-L has been designed to operate as additional unit to the PESERA model framework. However, PESERA-L can also operate independently for landslide degree of instability, sediment yield, and degree of degradation by landslide assessment.

PESERA-L operates (both input and output file) with common ASCII grid files (common ARCGIS, ASCII grid raster file format) and ASCII text file (CVS format) structured for an easy exchange with EXCEL spreadsheet. The software use a graphic rendering by help of GNUPLOT 4.4.2 graphic engine distributed as open source (GPL license) and redistributable wihin PESERA-L. In this way the input/output raster files can easily viewed, and exported directly by the program without more complex GIS software. A simple GUI front end allow an easy interaction with the user.

System requirements OS: windows XP,Vista,win7 ; Ram: 2GB; space on HD 100MB

More details ...
	PESERA-L model: an addendum to the PESERA model for sediment yield due to shallow mass movement in a watershed [1.36 MB]